Nurture not neglect needed for Wanstead Park

How disappointing to see notices appearing in Wanstead Park warning of "deep mud" around the Ornamental Water. It has been with much dismay that those who regularly visit the park have watched the water gradually draining out of the Ornamental and other lakes over this year. Now, much of the lake is just mud with the amount of debris in the way of fallen trees and silt that has been allowed to build up over the years visible for all to see.

The disappearance of the water has been well documented with the Ilford Recorder highlighting the issue in January.

The custodians of the park, the City of London Corporation appear to have done little to address the issues.

There are I believe now plans to get a licence to obtain water from the nearby River Roding pumped into the Ornamental but this is only a stop gap measure.

The unique water system of the park which sees the lakes flowing into each other to retain water levels is broken. It has been broken for some time, it is the major reason why the park was put on the At Risk register by English Heritage in 2009. It must be a matter of ongoing embarrassment that the park remains on the register seven years later.

The Corporation are aware of the problems but seems dedicated only to a sticking plaster approach.

A lack of money is always quoted as the reason why things cannot be done. But we know the Corporation has deep pockets, it spends huge amounts of money on maintenance in other parts on its estate - such as Hampstead Heath. Why is Wanstead Park always the poor relation?

Wanstead Park is a fantastic ecological treasure for the local community, it needs to be nurtured and cared for, not left alone to die.

 

*published Ilford Recorder - 24/11/2016 and Wanstead and Woodford Guardian - 1/12/2016

Also see articles in Wanstead and Woodford Recorder 1/12/2016 and Wanstead and Woodford Guardian - 8/12/2016

Review of "Citizen Clem"

This excellent book from John Bew gives a comprehensive account of the life of Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee from cradle to grave.

The book charts Attlee’s journey from a middle class upbringing, going to the public school Haileybury and on to Oxford. He is set to follow his father into the law but then gets diverted to the east end, finishing up working for a charitable organisation, linked to his old public school. It is this experience that leads Attlee from big C conservatism to socialism.

Attlee served in the First World War, taking part in the failed Gallipoli venture and getting badly injured. His war service though also serves him in good stead for his future life as an MP and later war leader. He was elected as MP for Limehouse in 1922.

Bew captures the sense of Attlee being the right man in the right place. A good example being the rout of the Labour Party in 1931, which saw the party reduced from 288 to 46 MPs. As one of the few remaining, Attlee was well placed to take over the leadership, when his friend George Lansbury stood down in 1935.

One fascinating element of this book is the examination of the relationship between Attlee and Winston Churchill. Bew reveals the crucial role that Labour played in first opposing appeasement in the 1930s and then insisting it would not serve in a government with Chamberlain as PM. There seems to have been a close if at times antagonistic relationship between Churchill and Attlee, the latter often acting as a lightening conductor for criticism really intended for the former. .

Attlee was also a visionary, making preparations very early in the war for the building of a new socialist based society afterwards.

Bew makes much of how the reforms brought in by the 1945 Labour government, including the welfare state and NHS, encompassed Attlee’s radical views going back 40 years.

The author does overplay how much Attlee’s vision was a continuation of the reforms begun by the Liberal Party in the early part of the century. The role of nationalisation in laying the building blocks of what Attlee saw as a socialist future is underplayed.

The fascination of Attlee is that a man who was himself basically small C conservative all his life oversaw such radical change. Bew points out how Attlee would use the institutions to bring about real change in people’s lives, rather than destroying those bodies. He was foremost a pragmatist and realist, not a dreamer.

Perhaps the best example of Attlee’s conservatism was his lifelong devotion to public schools, born of his own childhood at Haileybury. The 1945 Labour government probably had the best chance of sweeping away the public schools forever but declined to do so. This was in part due to Attlee, who called for the public schools to “not be killed but adapted.”

Bew also brings out Attlee’s supreme skill at managing the Labour Party, harnessing the diverse skills of the likes of Herbert Morrison, Ernie Bevin, Aneuran Bevan, Hugh Dalton and Stafford Cripps for the common good of the party and country.

The leader had to deal with the constant left right battles that have marked the Labour Party down the years. The left led by Bevan was particularly critical of the leadership in the wartime coalition. The hostilities simmered during time in government, but Attlee was able to keep the actors together bringing about radical change in society.

Once Attlee was gone one of the many civil wars in the party broke out with the right being led by Hugh Gaitskell facing the left led by Aneurin Bevan.

At the start of the book Bew seeks to set Attlee in a Labour context, in doing so he dismisses any parallels some might like to draw with Jeremy Corbyn. At the start, this was off putting, however by the end it was possible to see that the author was right with his analysis. Corbyn is no Attlee. Both men share basic socialist principles but Attlee was a master of managing the party both in and outside Parliament.

Where there maybe a parallel is Attlee, the quiet man who was pilloried by Labour’s big beasts and the media generally, but came good. By the post war period, Attlee’s personal ratings with the public were high, a man who could be trusted and depended upon. He became Labour biggest electoral asset.

Taking the parallel argument further, there is possibly more similarity between Attlee’s predecessor as leader, George Lansbury, and Corbyn but that is another tale.

Bew has done an excellent job in chronicling the life of one of Britain’s greatest Prime Ministers. There are many lessons for the Labour Party today. It must also be hoped that this latest contribution to the legacy of Attlee and the post war Labour government does something to further raise that memory in the popular consciousness. There has been far too little written and broadcast about the amazing story of Attlee and what the Labour Party achieved during those post war years. The domestic reforms, as well as granting independence to India and other countries of the empire.

It is a period that needs to become better known, if for no other reason than that people come to learn what can be achieved when there is a genuine socialist government in power working for the common good of all.

Published by Riverrun Price £30

Emily Maitlis reveals lack of Catholic knowledge with Knights of St Columbus gaffe

Emily Maitlis, the BBC Newsnight’s expert on all things American, exposed the limits of her Catholic knowledge in a special programme, following the election of Donald Trump as president.

In a discussion with two members of the programme’s panel, Maitlis was questioning the candidates endorsement by the Klu Klux Klan (KKK).

Robert Emmet Tyrrell jnr, editor in chief of the American Spectator, shot back on the accusation that the KKK were holding a celebratory rally following the Trump victory. “But so too probably are the Knights of St Columbus (KSC),” said Emmett, who sensing Maitlis maybe out of her depth, suggested “maybe you don’t know who the Knights of St Columbas are?” Maitlis duly confirmed Emmet’s suspicion declaring:“another terrorist organisation?”

The US commentator then triumphantly revealed that the KSC are the largest organisation of Catholic males in the country. Hook line and sinker, the Newsnight’s anchor was sunk.

The US  Knights of St Columbus ofcourse are a member of the International Alliance of Catholic Knights, which includes the UK based Knights of St Columba. The organisation is devoted to charitable works and promoting Catholic education.

Maitlis later tweeted an apology: "Dear Knights of Columbus I apologise."

* published Tablet - 19/11/2016

Dave Harewood’s documentary “Will Britain ever have a black Prime Minister?” is good on analysis but weak on class and solutions

The BBC programme, Will Britain ever have a Black Prime Minister, presented by actor Dave Harewood, provided some devastating facts to illustrate the prejudice that still exists in British society.

Facts like that 45% of black children were growing up in poverty, compared to 25% of whites. A black person is 12 times less likely than a white one to become Prime Minister.

The programme went through the various institutions, such as education, the media, the law and Parliament, finding high barriers in all to the advancement of black people.

There are just 13 black MPs, representing 2% of the total number of MPs, whilst 4% of the total British population is black.

A visit to the BBC news room, revealed a sea of white faces. There was reference to past Director General Greg Dyke’s comment about the corporation being “hideously white.”

Little it would seem has changed throughout the Corporation, though there are more Black And Minority Ethnic (BAME) people fronting programmes like the news, so some might claim a window dressing exercise has taken place.

What the programme did not underline clearly enough was the role of class in keeping working class people out of the top positions in society. The few people who go to public schools, then onto Oxbridge are the ones who dominate the top roles in society – whether it be in Parliament, the City, the law, medicine or education. It is the priveliged route for the very few, mainly white, and wealthy.

Now, within that class definition, race and gender play a key role, disadvantaging people even more. So those with the least chance are likely to be working class BAME females.

The programme presented by David Hare, with Faiza Shaheen, director of the think tank Class, providing the stats, did well in outlining the problem but failed really to provide solutions. There was no mention of things like positive discrimination or forcibly opening up some of these institutions to make them more diverse.

Solutions are what is needed, because a more ethnically and gender representative Parliament say is bound to act differently to one drawn largely from a narrow priveliged band of what are in the main are white males (Faiza Shaheen’s blog provides some answers – see:@faizashaheen).  

These solutions are also part of addressing the increasing feeling of dissolution and disempowerment that was so clearly voiced at the EU referendum, for whatever reason.

It would also be wrong to suggest that if we had a black prime minister all would be well. A black prime minister could be an indication that things are moving in the right direction but not that the problem is solved.

Hare was quick to unfavourably compare Britain with America, which has horrendous race issues. Yes, there maybe more BAME actors in prominent roles in the leading roles in society – most notable being the first black President Barack Obama. But the presidency of Obama provides encapsulates the point, not having done a great deal for the welfare of the average black working class person in America.

If anything, America should provide a salutary class lesson for the Britain, in that in the US there was a tendency amongst some, especially in the middle class commentariat, to treat the election of Obama as a sign of total diversity and that the problems of the black community were no more. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So there is much to be done on both sides of the Atlantic when it comes to giving proper representation for BAME but it is wise to remember that this is only part of a problem that is class based, requiring some major changes in society - if the country is ever to be run for the mass of people as opposed to a narrow clique of the priveliged.

*published Morning Star 17/11/2016 - Class structures hold us back from a black PM  

West Ham United's problems this season resonate both on and off the pitch

The problems of West Ham United both on and off the pitch never seem far from the headlines. Indeed, many would argue that the two areas tend to mirror each other.

Off the pitch there are problems with fans fighting, security in and around the ground, getting to the ground and the orbiting cost of the stadium. On the pitch, results have been dire, with the club hovering just above the relegation zone and knocked out of the Europa League at the qualifying stages.

Taking the playing side first, West Ham recruited badly in the summer. They brought in 11 new players, of which only a couple can at this stage be said to add anything to the pool of players they had before. Amazingly, the two areas where the team needed strengthing, at right back and up front were not really addressed.

The best right back (make shift though he was in that position) James Tomkins was sold to Crystal Palace. The club seemed happy to rely on Michail Antonio, another makeshift right back - only one who really does not like playing that position - and Sam Byram. The latter got injured but was not a favourite of the manager, even before he was forcibly taken out of contention.

In a rush move, the club brought in veteran former Real Madrid right back Alvaro Arbeloa but he is another who has seen better days.

At the front, the club brought in Andre Ayew, Simeone Zaza, Jonathan Calleri and Ashley Fletcher. None has thus far impressed, though record £20 million signing Ayew has been out injured for most of the season.

Zaza just does not work, while Calleri and Fletcher both lack confidence. The club’s two best strikers remain Diafra Sakho and Andy Carroll, both of whom have been injured for most of the season. Sakho wanted to leave in the summer, only remaining at West Ham because he failed a fitness test, thereby collapsing a proposed move to West Bromwich Albion.

But despite the bad recruitment, it has been the failure of those players who performed so well last season to really fire that has caused many of the problems. Talisman Dimitri Payet has been nothing like the player he was last season. There have been flashes of brilliance, like the solo goal against Middlesbrough, but in the main the Frenchman has increasingly looked uninterested - with press reports that he may be looking to a move away from West Ham in January. Manuel Lanzini is another who has not performed to the standards he achieved last season.

The thrilling football produced last season tended to flow through Payet, Lanzini and Antonio. All three could run with the ball, backed up by the full backs and pressing midfield - putting West Ham immediately on the offensive. Too often this season, the players have not been ready to get on the front foot and make those runs, resulting in the ball being player across the midfield, allowing the opposition to regroup.

Finally, at the back there have been some horrendous displays. Things improved with the return of Aaron Creswell at left back and the deployment of Cheikhou Kouyate as a third central defender in a sweeping role. The centre backs also settled down. However, things have not been helped at times by the erratic form of the usually dependable goalkeeper Adrian. Brilliant at one moment, Adrian can then pull off a howler the next. The last home game against Stoke City was a classic example, the keeper inexplicably coming out thereby gifting the opposition a goal and a point. All season Adrian has been weak on collecting crosses, often flapping at them, rather than collecting.

The erraticism of Adrian began at the end of last season but his position always seems assured. His more than able deputy Irish international Darren Randolph should be given a chance, at least to remind Adrian that he is not an automatic pick.

So there is much for manager Slaven Bilic to sort out, though he can undoubtedly resolve the issues. A couple of good signings in the January window and resolution of the Payet situation should see the form improve. It certainly has to be resolved because the one thing that would turn the first season at the London Stadium into a total nightmare would be relegation.

Off the pitch, many of the problems are logistical. There are so many security staff around, doing who knows what? A typical visit to the London Stadium goes like this. Once off the train at Stratford station, one climbs the steps onto the bridge that takes people across to Westfield and the Olympic Park.

The first encounter with stewarding is a guy standing with a loudhailer shouting at fans and public alike who are stepping onto the bridge area. There are individuals walking around with notices, saying no way to the stadium or this way to the stadium. The aim appears to be to make the fans walk as far as possible before they get anywhere near the stadium. Some walk on down past Westfield, cutting through John Lewis to come out on the road opposite the Olympic Park.

Enroute there are more security people, whose main function seems to be to get in the way or put barriers in the way of avenues where people might seek to walk. There are for instance numerous barriers put in front of the Aquatics centre (former Olympic Swimming pool), narrowing the walkway – why? The effect is to corall the spectators into narrow spaces.

One of the problems with the whole experience outside the stadium for the West Ham fan (which probably spills over into frustration, once inside the ground) is one of not feeling welcome. The fans are a problem to be managed, not welcome visitors.

Westfield for instance is willing to take fans money in its overpriced bars but really does not want too many of them around.

Inside the ground, there are again lots of security staff around. There are a whole number of different security companies operating in the ground. One question must be what happened to the very professional security operation that used to operate at the Boleyn ground. Are those people involved at all?

There are other problems in the ground, such as the standing up by many fans. The view of the game, although distant for some is generally pretty good. Much of the trouble in the ground is no doubt due partly to bad stewarding and management of fans but also the growing frustration of being corralled on the way to the stadium.

One question that remains is why there was not a direct route established between the rail station and the ground, a tunnel or covered corridor with travellator. True, this would have required some foresight on the part of those planning the Olympic Stadium at the outset, regarding what the stadium would ultimately be used for as part of the legacy.

So there do seem to be a number of problems both on and off the pitch for West Ham United at the moment, however all are resolvable. On the pitch, no doubt the excellent Slaven Bilic will sort out the problems. Off the field, stewarding needs resolving, with the treatment of fans being made a priority.

In terms of the cost of the stadium and other such issues, it does need to be remembered that West Ham are only one body among a number using the stadium, it is not their ground as such. They have given up the ground they owned (the Boleyn) to rent the London Stadium on a long lease. Not every problem on the Olympic Park and surrounding interests can be laid at the door of the football club. West Ham want to play football in what is a magnificent stadium – no doubt the problems can be resolved, though some synchronisation both on and off the pitch is needed.

*published Morning Star - 12/11/2016

Remembrance has become a struggle between war and peace makers

There has been another silly argument over the past week concerning whether the England and Scotland football teams should be allowed to wear the poppy on their shirts for the international match on Friday.

It is a stupid objection from FIFA to the wearing of the poppy, yet it has brought the issue into the public discourse. Remembrance Sunday has been an important event for the best part of the past century, paying tribute to those who died in the world wars.

The original idea was to remember the sacrifice and incredible loss caused by those conflicts. An underlying intention has been that by remembering the tragedy of the past, that the recurrence of  such an appalling slaughter might be avoided in the future.

However, over recent years there seems to have been a cutting away at that worthy peace making aim, moving the occasion instead onto being a jingoistic celebration of war.

It is noticeable how remembrance has moved from a few events over the weekend (nearest to 11 November) to something that now runs over weeks. Poppies began being worn this year in late October. Football clubs were having minutes of silence, with soldiers marching around the grounds weeks before the actual remembrance weekend.

The transformation or remembrance seems to have been something that has gone on over the past decade, coinciding with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It has been sad to see the dignity of the Remembrance Day sullied by those who seek to use the occasion to effectively promote war. Remembrance should be about remembering in order to avoid it all happening again in the future.

Maybe there should be other elements to remembrance, like remembering the contributions that this country has made to conflicts around the world in its role as a major trader in weapons.

The lamentable British response to the refugee crisis - much of it caused by a conflict, - where British weapon supplies have played a part in contributing to the devastation.

The recent shameful foot dragging about the acceptance of refugees from the Calais “jungle” is another insult to those who fought for freedom in the two world wars.

Let’s also remember the reasons for fighting in the world wars, namely to ensure freedom, tolerance and democracy. How does attacking those who don’t wish to wear a poppy – for whatever reason – fit in with those ideals?

Sadly, the remembrance day celebration seems to have become a tug of war between those who genuinely want to mark the sacrifice and suffering of many in order to secure our freedom and those cynically seeking to exploit the occasion to whip up a jingoistic patriotism that in its worse forms amounts to the promotion  of war.

This year things have been even worse with the growing antagonism toward the foreigner in post EU referendum Britain. A time when the worst elements of the British character have come to the fore – a mean minded island dweller looking inward to protect what he has, rather than looking out in a spirit of generosity to embrace others in a drive for a more peaceful co-existent world.

It can only be hoped that the peacemakers, who seek to mark this time of year for the losses incurred come out on top and that those seeking to promote war under the aegis of remembrance are defeated. Those who have fallen in war deserve no less.

 

West Ham held to draw by Stoke, ahead of tough run to Christmas

West Ham 1-1Stoke City

A lack lustre West Ham threw away two points ahead of the international break and the start of a run of four difficult games.

In a game that never really caught fire, the hosts managed one decent chance in the first half when Pedro Obiang rose to meet a Dimitri Payet cross but the keeper Lee Grant pushed the ball away.

It was the 64^th minute when West Ham snatched the lead, the  curiously quiet Payet knocking over a cross which Michail Antonio headed home via  a deflection off Glenn Whelan at the near post. The Premier League are putting it down as an own goal, though Antonio will feel aggrieved

The home team then looked comfortable, until keeper Adrian inexplicably came out to intercept a ball on the edge of his penalty area. He completely missed the ball, clattering Jonathan Walters in the process, Ths striker managed to chip the ball across for the onrushing substitute Bojan Krkic to finish.

The goalkeeper made several important saves, not least turning aside a Charlie Adam free kick in the dying minutes but there must be questions over his place in the side. He has given away other goals this season and cannot bring much confidenced to the defenders in front of him, when he continually seems to flap at crosses.

With such a competent deputy as Darren Randolph in the wings its can surely only be a matter of time before the Irish man is given his chance on a regular basis.

West Ham manager Slaven Bilic was standing by his keeper, despite the mistake, “We have a perfectly good goalkeeper, he is still number one,” said Bilic, who hopes to have striker Diafra Sakho back after the internation break. Andy Carroll is also back in training.

The return of both strikers will provide a welcome boost for Bilic, with his team lacking a cutting edge, In this game, record signing Andre Ayew battled away with little reward, while substitute Ashley Fletcher once again lacked confidence.

Bilic admitted his team were too slow in the first half, wanting too many touches. The Hammers now fade Spurs and Manchester United away (twice), followed by Arsenal at home after the international break.

Stoke boss Mark Hughes was pleased with the point and praised the London Stadium as “ a fantastic place.” He did though have some criticism of the surface, as being a bit slow, which did not suit his side’s style of getting the ball down and playing quickly.

War on terror exhibition at Imperial War Museum provides timely reminder, as to how the security state has come out into the open

Edmund Clark’s exhibition at the Imperial War Museum touches on some of the most disturbing elements of the so called War on Terror.

The conditions that hundreds of people were held under at Guantanamo Bay for many years juxtaposed next to Britain’s own internal security model - the control order, which turned houses into prisons, with individuals being held in true Kafakaesque style never told  of what they were accused.

The images are haunting – the shackles from Guantanamo that were used to hold people down and restrict movement. The matter a fact regulations from the Home Office about the restrictions applied to an individual held under held control order conditions. Some of the correspondence from detainees held in Guantanamo but now released.

The exhibition brings home the vivid reality as to what happens when the most basic liberties are sacrificed on the altar of security. Someone asked me why I was going to the exhibition as I must know what it would be about. To an extent that was true. Having covered the cases of some  those put under control order detention in this country, much of the exhibition was eerily familiar.

Take the case of a man known only as G, who was first incarcerated after being picked up in the post 9/11 hysteria under the Anti-terror crime and security Act (rushed onto the statute book in December 2001). He was later released to restrictive control order style detention. His hell had been going on for six years when I interviewed him across his doorway in 2007.

G lived with wife and family in a cramped flat. He sat in a wheelchair, tagged, needing to report into the monitoring company several times a day. He had attempted suicide when in prison. The interview was published in the Guardian and elsewhere.

G continued though to be detained for many more years. The Home Office were determined to get him and a number of other –mainly Algerians – deported on the basis of being threats to national security.

Many of the individuals were represented by solicitor Gareth Peirce, who was constantly present at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) arguing their cases. The SIAC operated under immigration law, thereby enabling the men concerned to be held seemingly indefinitely, without there ever being made aware of what they were accused.

This whole process went on for years, with these individuals portrayed in the media as threats to national security that the government wanted to get rid of but could not due to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The men and their families were effectively kept under a variety of forms of detention. Then quietly, on 18 April 2016, the SIAC ruled that six of the men considered to be threats to national security for so long could not be deported to Algeria on the basis of diplomatic assurances relating to their safety. The Home Office did not appeal the decision, so the men were free to stay.
There were 52 people subjected to control order style detention, according to Clark in the exhibition. The process of such detention still remains available under different forms when required.

What this whole process of detention of “terror suspects” over the years showed was the build up of a security state operating pretty much in the shadows. Almost anything could be done to the individuals concerned, yet the evidence of the threat they represented remained secret. The police, the security services and private security companies all came to play a part in the panalopy of a fledgling police state operating in the shadows.

The media rarely touched on the issue beyond demonising the men concerned or decrying the European Convention for Human Rights for stopping the British government kicking people out of the country. The fact that most of the men accused would have probably faced certain death had they returned to their country of origin, escaped most commentators. Cost was another media favourite, regularly referring to the amount of money it was costing to keep these individuals under surveillance.

What this shameful episode in British and American history reveals is a drift toward authoritarianism that continues to this day. The control orders may have gone but the security state has most certainly come out of the shadows.

Asylum seekers are routinely detained in huge numbers in this country. Those living in the community often fearfully await the knock at the door, with the Border Agency ready to haul people off at a moments notice.

The explosion of xenophobia that followed the EU referendum vote has provided an opening for many operating in the shadowy world of the security state to come out into the open. Today, individuals are almost being defined as no-people on the basis of their status.

In the meantime, the drumbeat of rhetoric about the war on terror continues in the background – feeding the feelings of insecurity in the population at large. The fear of the other that turns neighbour against neighbour, poisoning communities continues unabated.

Edmund Clark’s exhibition provides a timely reminder of the extremes that Western democracies will go to when they feel threatened. The pity though must be that the exhibition did not appear 10 years ago at the height of the abuses going on across the world from Guantanamo to Belmarsh. The world could have done with being reminded about what was going on then behind the curtains of the secret state.

The exhibition today together with accounts of what has gone on over the past couple of decades in the name of fighting terrorism serve as timely reminders of where we could be heading, namely toward an authoritarian state where basically anyone considered an enemy for whatever reason can have their rights taken away in the name of security and freedom

*War on terror exhibition runs at the Imperial War Museum until August 2017


* For more articles on secret evidence/detention see -

 Independent - 27/4/2009http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/paul-donovan-deportees-should-have-rights-too-1674767.html

New Statesman - 17/4/2008http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2008/04/taleb-deportations-algeria

 Guardian -28/3/2007http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/28/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices