Noam Chomsky, Billionaires and Lord Hutton



J K Rowling

It has been a good year for billionaires. Amidst the economic gloom, the annual list by Forbes Magazine shows that the wealth of the world's billionaires jumped 25% to $4.5 trillion and an average net worth of $3.5 billion. With 1210 people listed, Forbes described it as a 'record year for numbers, money and impact.' The UK has 32 billionaires on the list including the Queen and JK Rowling. Remarkably, that is three more than last year. The property empire of the Cavendish and Grosvenor family continues to top the domestic league with a value of $13 billion - some way short of the $74 billion of Carlos Slim Helu, the Mexican telecom magnate, who topped the list for the second year.

The Forbes list, however, was not the main story in the UK. At home, millions of public sector workers have been warned that they will have to work for longer, pay higher contributions and receive lower pensions. Lord Hutton's independent review concluded that by 2015 pensions should be related to average salaries over a career rather than final salaries. Hutton's recommendations will affect millions of people in the civil service, the NHS, teaching, local government,  the police, armed forces and the fire service already dealing with large job cuts, reorganisations and a pay freeze. Lord Hutton described the changes as a "comprehensive reform" that would "strike a balanced deal between public service workers and the taxpayer." 

The BBC news website led with the pension announcement while the Forbes list was relegated to a far less prominent position. Yet, both stories are equally significant. Last night, Noam Chomsky, an 82 year old Professor of Linguistics at MIT, was in town to deliver a speech at UCL. Academic speeches are rarely sell-outs, yet, not only was this the hottest ticket in town but it was broadcast live to thousands. Why? Chomsky is not only the foremost academic in his field but, whilst largely working outside the usual channels of political debate, he has become known as 'America's leading dissident' and has been dubbed by the New York Times as 'the world's greatest thinker'. For five decades he has been a highly influential critic of the US government and more recently global neo-liberalism. He is a profound thinker, a public intellectual - unafraid to confront controversial issues - and a beacon for change across the world. 

I first read Chomsky during my History BA. After Thatcherism and the fall of communism he was regarded as a marginal figure by many commentators and not in-tune with the 'new world order.' Capitalism, after all, had won. However, even at the high water mark of US authority, his fierce logic  and presentation of evidence was extremely influential on me. His work provided an analytical framework with which to view political events. It is heartening to see his ideas have, once again, found a broad audience. This visit, in the context of our current political upheaval, seems particularly timely and the clamour for tickets reflects the widespread disenchantment that many people feel with the political mainstream.

Why the disenchantment? Why the sense of unease? In our lifetime we have seen a move from a relatively even distribution of wealth to a country with an increasing divergence in wealth. The rich are getting much richer, while there is less opportunity for everyone else. This outcome has been achieved through free-market reforms, introduced by all parties, that have been sold to us by a promise of choice, efficiency, greater opportunity and greater affluence. In a properly regulated economy it is possible that all these things could be true, but the latest economic crisis has cracked the veneer of credibility of the present system and we are all confronted with the stark facts. Banker's bonuses and high student fees are the obvious symbols of the injustice laid bare. Billionaires 25% richer and public servants losing pension entitlements. Are we all feeling the 'pain' equally?

Chomsky

Sounds like 'commie' talk, I can hear you cry. Try and rein in that impulse and consider who is providing us with the messages? Where have our basic assumptions come from? Much has been made of Murdoch's control over the media but as I pointed out yesterday - how much freedom of maneuver does the BBC really have? Manufacturing Consent is one of Chomsky's most important works and demonstrates how our media actually limits the scope of political debate. As with any worthwhile intellectual work, Chomsky, does not lend himself particularly well to soundbites. His books are fully researched and tightly argued. Read them or catch his film Manufacturing Consent on YouTube (http://bit.ly/FeHLG).

As Chomsky notes in his book, New World Orders, Adam Smith the 18th Century philosopher and pioneer of economic theory argued in his influential book The Wealth of Nations that the rich follow, 'the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. All for ourselves, and nothing for the people.' Smith warned that merchants not governments 'were the principal architects' of policies designed to advance their own interests, however 'grievous the impact on their own populations'. It is perhaps evidence of the 'market's' control of the debate that Adam Smith is generally regarded as a founding figure of unrestrained capitalism rather than someone cautioning against its excesses.

What has brought Chomsky to such a wide audience? The cataclysmic failure of our financial system and the political and economic choices being made by our politicians make his central assumptions seem self-evident. Nowadays, it is much easier to conceive a situation in which: rich men rule the world, competing among themselves for a greater share of the wealth and power, using governments as agents of their policy and suppressing dissent either through violence (in poorer states) or through media control (in countries like the UK). The idea is not so outlandish as it once may have seemed? If you are not from a 'left-wing' political background it may sound like a grand conspiracy, but if you consider our present situation, the assumptions underpinning political action are clear. 'Follow the money' is a good rule when it comes to finding who pulls the strings. It will probably lead to those billionaires.

Well, perhaps not J K Rowling...but then again....

Good news from the BBC

Good news, at last! We can all breathe a little easier. According to the BBC website, February saw the 'fastest rise in permanent staff placements in ten months' and the 'sharpest increase in temporary positions since May 2007.' Despite my constant talk of a 'double dip' recession, faltering growth and the need for a 'Plan B', perhaps we have turned a corner? I hate to admit it but it would appear that the Chancellor has backed the right horse. Thank good...oh hang on a minute. What's this?

Only last week, as the media spotlight fell upon Rupert Murdoch's News Corp takeover of BSkyB, a little story emerged that I thought was just as significant. While the new and old media outside the control of Murdoch were predicting the end of press freedoms in the UK, I was distracted by a report from the Liberal Conspiracy website that revealed, 

'BBC journalists have been instructed by senior editorial staff to use ‘savings’ instead of ‘cuts’ in their news coverage, Liberal Conspiracy has learnt, in order to offer a “rosy” picture of government announcements.' 

Liberal Conspiracy reported that senior BBC management told journalists at BBC London that 'cuts' made the news appear too negative. The pressure on the BBC has grown after David Cameron publicly 'blasted' the 'British Broadcasting Cuts Corporation' in an interview in February for reporting every reduction in spending. The Daily Mail said that Downing Street was 'increasingly frustrated with the way the corporation is reporting the Government’s austerity programme.'

A BBC spokesman issued the following response to the suggestion that they were bowing to pressure, 

'We are reporting impartially on reductions in council and government spending and no instructions have been issued about terminology to be used in our coverage.'

However, Liberal Conspiracy reported that the official BBC statement had been contradicted by people working at BBC London and two separate journalists confirmed that the 'editorial decision at BBC London had been challenged several times this week in evening meetings.' Elsewhere, across the Corporation, a number of staff confirmed that discussions had taken place on the 'biased' reporting. 

So I arrive at today's BBC story, under the headline,  

Job market growth 'increased in February'

The article goes on to support the headline with some positive economic news. However, if you read beyond the first few paragraphs it quickly becomes apparent that the sums don't add up. In fact, the article actually says that unemployment increased,

'the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said unemployment had increased by 44,000 to almost 2.5 million in the three months to the end of December.'

The ONS also highlighted that the vast majority of the reported 40,000 new job vacancies were temporary jobs related to the 2011 census. Excluding these posts made the total vacancies, only 8,000. So much for a recovery driven by the private sector. 

Unemployment rose. That is the bottom line. Is this a good news story? I don't think I'll start cracking open the champagne or even ordering a take-away just yet. All the organisations mentioned in the BBC article, the ONS, REC and KPMG who carried out much of the research, report prospects for the economy are bleak. So why the spin? Does the information in the body of the article justify the positive headline? After all, how many people don't get beyond the first few lines of an article? If that is the case, what sort of impression would they have taken from the story? I hope they're not celebrating with a chicken madras.  

​I've always been aware that Murdoch's media empire has strong political bias, perhaps we need to worry more about who is influencing BBC editorial policy.

Of course, I can assure you that my posts will continue to be as impartial as ever. 

"We are not amused."

Is Prince Andrew about to get the chop? The pressure is certainly mounting. Yesterday the Sunday Times published an article entitled 'The Lowlife World of His Royal Highness', while in Prime Minister's Questions last week, Chris Bryant, the former minister for Europe, demanded that Andrew be stripped of his role as a UK trade ambassador. He later described him to BBC Breakfast as a "national embarrassment". On the BBC news website, Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, has indicated that there will have to be "conversations" about Prince Andrew and 'Downing Street sources' have indicated that 'one more serious story could make the prince's role untenable'. 

A number of recent stories have brought Prince Andrew's judgement into question. In a 2009 court case, Paul Page, a royal bodyguard documented how the prince repeatedly broke Buckingham Palace security protocols in order to entertain late night female visitors. Page also recorded that when challenged on one breach of the rules, the prince, who was regarded as one of the rudest royals - any bets on who the rudest royal is - told Page, 'This is my f***ing house, I can go where I want. Now f*** off!' Nothing quite like the Queen's English is there?

According to the Sunday Times, a number of former diplomats have criticised his 'rude' manner and poor judgement. This was illustrated over the weekend by the revelation that he hosted a business lunch for Sakeher el-Materi, the son-in-law of Tunisia's President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali,  just three months before he was deposed. Such unsavoury associations, however, would seem to be in keeping with the prince's general tastes. The Sunday Times article discussed a number of unlikely friendships and speculated about 'Andrew's penchant for being around people who have access to pretty women.' 

On the whole, most of the story seems a bit thin. A rude royal. A man with a taste for pretty women. A member of an extremely wealthy family with a few dodgy social connections. Not particularly shocking is it? The business lunch? Certainly, it is embarrassing, especially, as the Daily Mail has discovered the meeting was not an official engagement but initiated by the prince. But whether public or private, the meeting was attended by dozens of British executives all looking to get their share of the same distasteful pie. Are the papers going to call for them to be sacked? Difficult to criticise the prince for having the same degree of foresight as the British intelligence services. They didn't see Tunisia coming either. Observe Mr Cameron - it is much easier to try and do the right thing after the event. 

Epstein

Most damaging of all are the photos published in the New York Post, showing Prince Andrew walking through Central Park with convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, the man who paid off the Duchess of York's personal debts. 'Prince and the Perv' ran the headline. He was convicted for soliciting a minor for prostitution and received an 18 month prison sentence but only after a plea bargain. There were allegedly many more victims and according to FBI documents, a witness claimed on one occasion Epstein had three 12 year old girls flown over from France. 

According to the Sunday Times, Epstein has been a guest at Windsor and Sandringham, while Prince Andrew has stayed with Epstein at his homes in New York and Florida. However, that is not all the two men have shared. Both have been romantically linked with Robert Maxwell's daughter, Ghislaine Maxwell, although court papers indicated that she had developed a business relationship with Epstein. 

The article noted that one girl, Virginia Roberts, who was 'recruited' to work for Epstein and abused by him when she was 15 years old, was also introduced to Prince Andrew by Ghislaine. Roberts has not made any claims about Prince Andrew's conduct, however, Ghislaine is considering what action to take in relation to accusations about her role in the Epstein case made by two other women. 

It may be a collection of gossip and innuendo at the moment but what a terribly sordid world is emerging. Andrew's lifestyle is certainly a story. Dictators, prostitutes, paedophiles and our dear royal family all in the mix. After the news of of Kate and Will's wedding and the success of The King's Speech at the Oscars, "cor blimey gov'nor, don't yer just love Colin Firth", I-I-I am sure the palace was hoping for a run of more sympathetic coverage. Just why is it that a family that has risen to power through a history of violence, interbreeding, loveless marriages, luck and deceit, can't seem to stay out of trouble? Happily, for the Windsors, they are still very well protected and so far I find this aspect of the story just as disturbing. 

Roy Greenslade asked in his Guardian blog today, 'Why are so few newspapers carrying the Prince Andrew Story?'. He notes the majority of the mainstream newspapers have 'overlooked' it so far, including the Guardian. Isn't paedophilia and public figures meat and drink to papers, he asks? Only the Mail and Sunday Times have pursued the story. Why is it being ignored? Is it the same reason that the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, stated during Prime Minister's Questions, that all future references to royals were to be 'very rare, very sparing and very respectful'? I didn't realise that the Speaker had a constitutional role to define the breadth of a debate in the Commons?

Why the special treatment? Are papers worried about not getting good seats for the wedding? Surely the royal family's position requires the House of Commons and our newspapers to hold them, and their staff, to the very highest levels of scrutiny and standards of public behaviour. Yet, as the has reported today the prince's representatives gave the impression that the meeting with Sakher el-Materi had been organised by by the Government's Trade and Investment Bureau and the prince's press secretary, Ed Perkins, tried to patch up a deal with UKTI, ‘Am deploying the line that he (Materi) was vice chairman of the Chamber of Commerce. Will UKTI stand behind him? We need some govt backing here . . .’ 

Rather embarrassingly, Perkins sent the email out to the media rather than the UKTI so that particular lie couldn't be fed through. No matter, the waters are being muddied. His followers are closing ranks. David  Cameron has offered Prince Andrew his 'full support' and William Hague has said he has 'done a jolly good job.' Hugo Vickers, a royal historian, told the BBC there had been a 'rather irresponsible harassment of Andrew by the press.' Accusations of close connections to a paedophile and it is described as 'irresponsible harrassment'. Would that be the case for any other public figure outside the royal family? No, but instead the focus of this story seems to be drifting to the rather irrelevant question of whether the prince remains a trade envoy. 

Hurrah for George VI

Vince Cable told the BBC "I think we need to remember he is doing this as a volunteer, he is not a government appointee, he is not somebody who is appointed and sacked." What wonderful logic -  so does that mean the Government can't get rid of him even if they wanted to? Perhaps doctors and nurses should pull the same trick and just claim 'expenses'. The BBC political correspondent, Gary O' Donaghue believes "It's unlikely the government would actually sack Prince Andrew but may choose in the long run gradually to downgrade his activities, avoiding a damaging and embarrassing row between ministers and the Royal Family." 

Embarrassing for whom? Damaging for whom? I think Minette Marrin, in the Sunday Times, yes a Murdoch paper, got it half right when she said this is a story about a prince corrupted by deference. Yes, I agree, but I think deference has also corrupted our media and politicians. 

It doesn't particularly bother me if he keeps the trade envoy job. His official engagements look like a tour of the 'axis of evil' + Germany - not sure if they are included or not. Compared to his friends, letting him hang out with tyrants would be less embarrassing to the country.