My new website is now live. The new site was developed by Prater Raines Ltd, with an aim to making the site more image led and contemporary in feel.
The content from my old website can be viewed at http://kironreid.lib.dm/en/ until May 31st. The aim is to import the content from the old website to this new website in due course.
Please do check back regularly to see updates on my work.
On the Tory Government
“this new Tory government. Already a government loaded with banana skins, not only unleashing all the right-wing stuff we stopped them doing and worse but also behaving, in a reckless flush of post-electoral euphoria, as if they have a majority of 92 not 12.”
Tony Greaves, Liberator 373, August 2015, p. 6.
And it’s got worse since, an ideologically driven government driving through divisive measures with only 36% of the vote. Things were better under the Coalition. (KR).
On the EU referendum in the UK:
“Winning not only the referendum but the argument for years to come requires a positive campaign based upon the EU as peace process, the EU as supranational democracy in place of international chaos and warfare and the EU as the key to environmental sanity.”
David Grace, Liberator 375, November 2015, p. 11.
Further to my previous post of a remarkable report from the Guardian, from 1944, where a senior Liverpool judge takes a stand against racism. Here are a few lines of background about
Edward G. Hemmerde KC (1871-1948). It was also notable that the West Indian man, convicted of failing to attend Home Guard duties, George Roberts, is represented by Rose Heilbron, the Liverpool Law Faculty graduate and pioneering female barrister.
Edward G. Hemmerde KC (1871-1948) is probably unknown in Liverpool nowadays but deserves to be better known as a significant city political figure and character, and a judge who spoke out against racism in 1944. He was brought to my attention by my bookdealer father-in-law of Cardiff.
Nicholas Willmott writes
Yesterday I picked up a play written by him (‘Proud Maisie’ 1912). It is perfectly dreadful: Scottish historical drama portrayed through acres of blank verse – apparently the first night did not conclude until 11.45pm! However, I discover that Hemmerde’s career was rather more concerned with law and politics (and rowing) rather than literature.
I learn that he sat as a Liberal MP, latterly switching to Labour, and that his political career was largely abandoned after financial irregularities became the subject of court hearings. However, having been appointed Recorder of Liverpool in 1909, he maintained a prominent legal career up to his death.
Looking up old newspaper clippings it becomes clear that he enjoyed a frosty relationship with Liverpool Corporation, something he ascribed to his insistence that Sinn Fein defendants received a fair hearing, and his frequent complaints about heavy-handed policing.
I attach a remarkable 1944 clipping from the Guardian. The case also involves, early in her career, Rose Heilbron.
There is a substantial article in ‘The Journal of Liberal History’, Winter 2010, ‘The Strange Case of E.G. Hemmerde’ by David Dutton. From which article I learn that his defects probably rather outweighed his virtues. Fortunately, for Hemmerde, David Dutton skates over the man’s dubious literary accomplishments.
It is possibly significant that our copy of ‘Proud Maisie’ remains, after more than a century, largely unopened. However, there is no difficulty in assessing the quality of the verse: astonishingly bad. His name must always have prompted a smirk the other side of the Channel where, as I am sure you know, ’emmerdeur’ loosely translates as ‘pain in the fundament’.
I suspect there will not be a revival of interest in Hemmerde’s literary output any time soon. It was fortunate that the ‘Journal of Liberal History’ article was old enough to be available online. One can relish some of the impressive personal abuse quoted from correspondence.
The picture below is of a remarkable report from the Guardian, from 1944, where a senior Liverpool judge takes a stand against racism. The defendant, George Roberts, (a West Indian helping the war effort and victim of discrimination) was represented by the Liverpool University Law graduate, and pioneering female barrister, Rose Heilbron.
Edward G. Hemmerde KC (1871-1948) was the Recorder of Liverpool, so the top criminal law judge in the city. The report, from the Manchester Guardian, was found and provided to me by Nicholas Willmott, bookdealer of Cardiff (and father in law). Nick had found a copy of Hemmerde’s excrutiatingly bad poetry in a charity bookshop in Newport so was researching just who he was.
THE COLOUR BAR IN ENGLAND: Recorder’s Denunciation of a “Noisy, Intolerant Minority”
Source. The Manchester Guardian (1901-1959); Aug 2, 1944; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Guardian and The Observer pg. 3
Originally published at: http://liberator-magazine.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/what-in-campaign-is-doing-right-and.html
The pro-staying in EU campaign has avoided some key mistakes from the AV and Scottish referendums but is still making some significant errors.
What it is doing right.
1) It is not fronted by politicians.
2) It is not only talking about economics.
3) It is talking about issues that people care about.
4) It is talking in language that people understand.
5) It appears united, as much as it is so far getting any coverage or is visible.
What the In Campaign is doing wrong.
1) It is not talking about ideas, positive ideals, principles or vision but almost entirely about economics.
2) It is being negative – in some if thankfully not most of its literature.
3) It does not say who they are.
4) It does not say who is funding the campaign or where their money comes from.
5) It is talking mostly about money and cost-benefit, if not the directly the economy and jobs.
What it is doing right.
1) It is not fronted by politicians. This was a blunder of the pro-AV campaign (which would have been a pretty insignificant voting reform in any event), and a blunder of the Better Together campaign to prevent an artificial break up of the United Kingdom.
Britain Stronger in Europe is headed by the former boss of Marks & Spencer, Stuart Rose. He is a genuine successful businessman who has been head of a thoroughly British company (founded by Jewish immigrants). Karren Brady the football manager and business woman is also a key figure. The agent is Will Straw, son of Labour minister Jack Straw and one of the current generation of Labour Party dynastic scions. But it makes sense to have an experienced campaigner running the campaign. Though the ones running the AV and Scottish referendum anti-breakaway campaigns were pretty hopeless. The populist nasty right wing press and politicians, and populist anti-political establishment Scottish nationalist establishment politicians ran rings round them.
Lord Stuart Rose does look like another old man in a suit, but nothing like as badly as the old Tory politician who is a figurehead for the antis. I don’t dismiss the experience of age but here is where I would have preferred some populist celebrity culture.
2) It is not only talking about economics. The campaign is also talking about Britain’s role in Europe (the visionary part of its message), security, about opportunity and sometimes about the environment, about peace. The http://www.strongerin.co.uk/ website has the headline “Britain is stronger, safer and better off in Europe than we would be on our own.” “More jobs and opportunities” and these key phrases repeated “The benefits of being in-a stronger economy, stronger security and stronger leadership on the world stage”. If you click on the Menu button it only has those tags along with “A Stronger Britain”. I happen to agree; and maybe these key slogans will convince the undecided or some antis that Yes, in reality, is the right answer. But they are also the same slogans that the Leave campaign will be using, and their brainwashed recipients of Daily Mail and Daily Express propaganda (and many Labour supporters and figures believe it too) are likely to agree with them deployed by the antis because they say what they want to hear.
3) It is talking about issues that people care about. Jobs, mostly jobs, prices, and security and sometimes the environment. Its emails include the slogan “Thank you for being a part of the campaign to keep Britain stronger, safer and better off.” Sir Hugh Orde, the former top police chief, argues that the EU is good for security. By contrast, the pro-AV campaign both failed to explain what the proposed reform was for and greatly exaggerated the possible benefits. They sloganised and failed to explain either the detail or get across why a change to the vote system was relevant.
4) It is talking in language that people understand. The recent newspaper that was distributed around the country was well put together and clearly written, with a variety of stories on different relevant issues affecting people. (The Guardian reports that 10M newspapers were to be delivered – presumably paid delivery by the Royal Mail. I know copies went out in London, and city centre and suburban Liverpool).
5) It appears united, as much as it is so far getting any coverage or is visible. The anti-EU campaign meanwhile is split and arguing amongst itself over who or which faction is top dog. I don’t believe in unity being needed for the sake of unity. The press, party leaders, and opponents are obsessed with that – genuine disagreement and debate is normal in any group. The antis however seem to like fighting amongst themselves almost as much as they like hating the EU, presumably because they are such a coalition of people with completely different ideas about what they believe in, and only agree on what they are against. Hopefully the In campaign can put a positive vision of a modern, pluralist, tolerant, thriving country that plays a key part in Europe and on the World stage. The best of Britain, not the best of mythical 1950s Britain.
What the In Campaign is doing wrong.
1) It is not talking about ideas, positive ideals, principles or vision but almost entirely about economics. It is almost entirely talking about jobs – rational arguments about the cost to people of leaving the EU and the financial benefits of being in. But making almost the same mistake that the Better Together campaign made of leaving the idealistic, principled, visionary side to the breakaway campaign. True it will be hard to make creating a pro-reformed European Union a romantic vision, unlike the wilful nostalgia and rose tinted glasses of the antis, or the ‘all things to all people’ Independence campaign, but for some of us the vision of a peaceful united Europe is a romantic vision we would like to see. Living life in peace. Instead of the anti-vision of constant conflict (albeit not literal conflict thankfully).
Stronger In fails to adequately promote the successes, and extreme present necessity of European countries to all work together in a grown up way. Further it fails to promote reform or the need for reform. Sure this referendum cannot deliver reform but the Yes side cannot ignore the flaws of the EU and the areas where reform is badly needed. The tabloid anti-European Parliament and bloated Brussels bureaucrats may be completely awful myths but some of the criticism is fair. There is nothing on the In website answering lies about the EU or misinformation. Where are people likely to look to fact check? Where can they? – there aren’t even links here. Yet the campaign is already failing to be completely truthful, by overegging the pudding. The newspaper and website cite the EU abolishing mobile phone roaming charges but it hasn’t abolished them yet, as customers obviously know if they travel abroad. Why on Earth didn’t they just tell the truth – the very good truth that the EU has massively cut mobile phone roaming costs and is going to abolish them. I think it was MEPs who did most on this (but it may have been the Commission).
There is a Mythbusters page in the newspaper, but it is a list of simplistic generalisations. A list of 6 ‘UKIP MYTH’ statements with typical statements like those UKIP and their parrots come out with, but no answer to real specific anti-EU myths. The criticism and bad reputation of the EU is most undeserved but partly deserved – failure to acknowledge the latter being a key problem of official pro-EU material. (There’s no search facility, making the website of limited use).
2) It is being negative – in some if thankfully not most of its literature. The advert on Facebook is negative – immediately apt to be designated as ‘scaremongering’ by the antis. “What would leaving Europe mean for YOU and YOUR family?” “there will be pain”. It exposes the negative possible consequences identified by leading Leave EU figures, but it simply seems negative. Negative arguably worked for anti-AV, and for the anti-England, Wales, Scotland, NI split, but it is unlikely to convince the stuck in a 1950s idealised Britain older generation, and ignorant anti-difference younger people, that there is something good to vote for. The website does promote more positive messages. While I am no fan of NUS it is good to see the NUS President represented as the EU has been great for generations of students having more opportunity to widen their horizons than ever before. Many others on the Facebook group have called for more positives in the campaign.
3) It does not say who they are. The campaign newspaper does not say who the people behind the campaign are – to that extent, a glossy newspaper, it looks like party political or marketing PR. They miss a trick by failing to mention prominent supporters, although some business people and ordinary people are included. It looked like glossy political marketing even if the content was quite good. There is no human touch to encourage you to get involved. There is nothing about who set up the campaign (because presumably it was mostly actually lead by party political activists, as well as a few pro-Europe activists). Whereas the antis will eagerly roll out their populist figureheads. Worse, the website fails to include this information where there is no excuse for a lack of information and lack of openness. The Facebook group under ‘About’ is a blank. There’s also no address. Ok, it’s online and points you to the website but it would take seconds to put up the information.
4) It does not say who is funding the campaign or where their money comes from. Neither the newspaper or the website includes this information. There is nothing about where the money to fund the campaign came from or comes from. Sure, failure of the anti-electoral reform funders to out themselves as rich Tory donors, corporate raiders and newspapers barons didn’t harm the campaign because the public believed the drivel they spouted. But the pro-EU campaign has to be totally above board – because of the bad reputation of the EU, and because the antis will show their nasty anti-social tendencies. Articles in the FT, on the BBC, and on Sky inform that it has received large amounts of money from big financial institutions and banks.
5) It is talking mostly about money and cost-benefit, if not the directly the economy and jobs. See (1) above. A case about economics is not going to win people over in hearts and minds. If people feel after the referendum that they’ve not had a fair vote – like in Scotland or in the previous referendum on membership of the European Economic Community, people feel somehow cheated – then there will be limited acceptance of the result and regular renewed calls for a new referendum leading to more instability in our national political debate of the kind that undermined John Major’s government and has bubbled as a hot and cold war in the Tory party under Cameron. People need to feel they are making a well informed positive choice. The evidence on prices is important. I’m entirely convinced that prices in real terms for most things now are cheaper than at any time in my lifetime because of our membership of the EU. But is that enough to get people out to vote For?
I entirely agree with the reforms that David Cameron is trying to negotiate. I think his recent agreement announced by Donald Tusk is a good place to start for a fairer, more cost effective, improved EU. Maybe when (I hope) Cameron achieves a better deal, some real wins, the In campaign will at least promote these reforms as a victory for Britain and for reformers and genuine pro-Europeans everywhere. After all, Mrs. Thatcher’s win on Britain’s rebate helped her and the Tory’s image for years. Concessions from those who do not want to relinquish excessive EU level standardisation may be the defining achievement of David Cameron’s Prime Ministership, just as Tony Blair’s sealing the peace in Northern Ireland was his most important positive historic legacy.
Notes. [A page of notes omitted from original publication on the Liberator magazine blog site].
Also known as The Stronger In Campaign and The In Campaign Ltd. It is funny that it’s colours look exactly like the SDP colours. This is presumably an attempt to appear neutral to both Conservative and Labour supporters, or patriotic, but it does also rather look as if the campaign is run by the parties of the political establishment rather than being non-party political and in the public good.
Thankfully both the environment and reforms get more of a mention on the Facebook page (though as is the nature of Facebook you have to scroll to find them; also good quotes in favour on security grounds by Keir Starmer, probably the best civil liberties barrister of his generation, and Rob Wainwright, the Brit who is Director of Europol. Four former Labour Home Secretaries back the EU on grounds of increased security for the UK. And they are not wishy washy civil libertarians.
The Facebook page post on 27 October has the text “Action by the EU means mobile roaming charges are to be SCRAPPED – great news for British families.” but the accompanying graphic says in Caps (omitted here)
Good news for British families:
Roaming Charges Scrapped
Thanks to Action by the EU
(despite UKIP MEPs voting against it)
It’s like the classic ‘New’ Labour budget trick, copied by George Osbourne, of announcing something and then announcing it again, and then again when it actually happens.
Former Bristol West MP, Stephen Williams, has written a good pro-EU blog here:
https://stephenwilliamsmp.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/britain-and-bristol-are-stronger-in-the-european-union/ (Needless to say I do’t agree with all of Stephen’s points).
He says (Facebook post 6 February) “The risk to the British economy from a Brexit is the greatest reason for remaining in. But there are plenty of other reasons why working together with our nearest neighbours is in the British national interest.”
The Express, Sun and Mail are all openly anti- so the In campaign must have the moral arguments on its side.
Postscript. It was only on looking at the Facebook page that I spotted I had posted this on 26 October. “I agree with what I’m reading on the campaign pages but am worried and concerned that everything I’ve seen so far in two weeks is about the economy and jobs. Nothing about principles, peace, values, shared European civilisation, the environment and maybe I’ve just spotted a glimpse of consumer rights, women’s rights, and workers’ rights. How about those fantastic values written in quotes from statesmen and women from across Europe and across the decades which are displayed on the wall of the EU Parliament Parlamentarium exhibition which most Brits won’t know is a hugely popular genuinely informative tourist attraction for visitors to the lovely European city of Brussels.”
A non-party political friend, David Kraft, recently posted an excellent Facebook soapbox decrying the lack of positive messages by political campaigns who are arguing they are supporting good causes.
Nicholas Whyte, an experienced international affairs and European strategist, recently stressed the importance of staying positive in this column, Lesson 5 http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/opinion/seven-steps-to-winning-a-referendum/
It is an interesting concise article which “consider[s] what lessons the UK campaigns for this year’s referendum can learn from similar votes, both in the UK and elsewhere.”
I only disagree with the tone of Lesson 4, second para., which seems unrealistic to ignore the importance of how good the deal offered is, cynical to suggest ignoring the detail, but correct to say that the big picture is more important.
In a welcome development the latest email from Stronger In, in the name of a volunteer called Bhavnesh, does stress both economic and non-economic reasons for voting for continued membership of the EU. (11 February).
A .pdf with the links to the latest news stories (courtesy of the press office and staff of #ZNU / #ЗНУ) is under the articles and downloads section.
A couple of these stories mentioning aspects of my visit are also available in an English version.
http://sites.znu.edu.ua/news_details.php?news_id=19705&lang=eng&news_code=At-the-Faculty-of-Law-held-a-second-competition-on-the-linguistic-knowledge-of-professional-English
http://sites.znu.edu.ua/news_details.php?news_id=19746&lang=eng&news_code=American-media-experts-Mark-Dillen—Campus-of-ZNU-is-very-similar-to-American- This is a report on the visit of former US diplomat, journalism professor and Fulbright Commission representative, Mark Dillen. I was able to join one of Mark Dillen's lectures with journalism students. We subsequently co-presented a lecture on election observation and the media, where Dillen talked from first hand experience about the creation of the OSCE and its beginnings in election observation work. The students impressed with their incisive questions.
I was particularly pleased in the lecture with Mark Dillen to be able present to the Faculty of Journalism a set of OSCE/ODIHR manuals, guides, policies and brochures that were relevant to the students and staff. Including topics like monitoring the media, women's participation, election observation methodology and the history of OSCE's work in this part of the human dimension. Thomas Boserup, the Deputy Head of the election mission, had given these materials to me to assist the Univesity students understand more about election observation, the work of election observers, and the important role that the media has to play in assisting free, fair and credible elections.
Not any stories but the description from my LinkedIn profile:
Election Observation Mission for Ukraine Local Elections, 25 October & 15 November 2015.
I was a Long Term Observer (LTO) for the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Election Observation Mission (EOM).
Odessa Oblast (Region) North local elections, and Chernihiv City Mayor election 2nd Round.
Undertaking election observation and responsible with international partner for deployment of short term observers (1) in 14 districts (Rayons) including one city of regional importance between Odessa and the Moldovan / Transdniestrian border (high security status), 10 international observers plus local staff; (2) the regional capital in the 3rd largest region in Ukraine, bordering Belarus, 8 international observers plus local staff. Our work contributed to several references in the EOM interim reports.
You can read more about the election mission here:
Photos taken during Ukraine trip.
Currently a Long Term Observer, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), Election Observation Mission for Ukraine Local Elections, 25 October 2015. September – November 2015. I will not be commenting at all on Ukraine related politics for a two month period, and am largely out of the loop and not focused on UK politics at present.
http://www.thepianosachronicle.com/?p=275 I was invited by writer Martin Edwards to contribute to his website, the Pianosa Chronicle, which features an interesting variety of writing by a range of writers. The site had first come to my attention because they published an interesting series of articles on the state of the Welsh language in Wales. My article on the site considers why British policy makers, politicians, psychologists and analysts pay little or no attention to any parallels between previous support for violent / terrorist organisations, and the current apparently mindless conversion of some disaffected young men and women from mostly ethnic minority backgrounds to support a violent abhorrent 'Islamist' terror. The issue has struck me as an obvious question at least to consider since shortly after September 11, and certainly post the 7 July 2005 bombings.
I added an Addendum to the Pianosa Chronicle article on 8 February 2016:
http://www.thepianosachronicle.com/?p=275#comment-11648
adding the previously omitted obvious historical connection to the anarchist or nihilist outrages across Europe of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, with reference to Alex Butterworth's study "The World that Never Was", fascinating and tragic and well written, very readable.