Think tankery gossip

At Demos last night for a debate on who those on the Left should vote for and whether tactical voting could work against Labour this time around. At the podium was John Harris, who has written a book about his search for an alternative to New Labour, following some reports he’s done for the BBC, and Labour apologist and columnist, David Aaronovitch. Chairing it was Neal Lawson, who has broken with New Labour in recent years.

The meeting and location was exactly as expected: open planning, stripped wooden floors and minimalism abound at Demos – exactly what you would expect from a New Labour think tank. I also heard from someone that they had cut a deal with Ikea for their furniture – but does that make them cutting edge, or catching a wave after it’s passed?

As for the debate, it could be characterised simply: as a return to traditional Labour values (Harris) or a search for greater choice (Aaronovitch). But Harris wouldn’t phrase it as simply as that, despite Aaronovitch’s attempt to stereotype him as Old Labour with its commitment to statist solutions. Instead Harris argued that he recognised the need to change, but said greater private sector involvement without the guarantee of a level playing field for the public sector couldn’t be fair.

As to my question, both failed to respond, and Lawson didn’t take the bait. I asked whether this wasn’t a debate which had also taken place before the last election, with the result that Tony Blair promised to make his focus the reform of public services. In fact, that was the central thesis of Lawson’s co-edited book, The Progressive Century (which has been commented upon in this blog before), but those ideals appear to have abandoned in the period since, following the al-Qaeda attacks, Iraq and the so-called war on terror. Wasn’t the danger, I asked, that without any meaningful reform, Labour may well find itself in 2009 in exactly the same position as 2001 and 2005 – by which time it may be facing a more hostile electorate, who see little reason to vote for them again?

Iraq was one theme which was skirted around, which was refreshing – if anything, the arguments have been rehearsed ad nauseam; but I also suspect that a Demos crowd would be keen to avoid having that conversation. Consequently, there was only one spat between Harris and Aaronovitch over the issue, with Lawson sitting serenely between the two. Subsequently, I was told by a friend at the meeting that the two really don’t like each other – and that altercation revealed it. Admittedly though, my friend is an uncontrollable political gossip!

Among the other observations made was one by a young blonde woman who occasionally writes for the New Statesman. She asked what the future was for Labour when so few young progressives were willing to join. As a counterexample she pointed to the Tories whose youth wing was not only growing, but far more politically and ideologically active. In response Lawson highlighted the relative decline of Labour by mentioning a conversation he overheard between some Labour students at conference. They were discussing which member of the leadership they most identified with; several plumped for Geoff Hoon, which begs the question, what the hell does a Hoonite believe?!

Then the woman’s companion then launched into an ill-thought out and inarticulate defence of traditional Labour values. That got Aaronovitch’s blood up. He seems quite an irascible individual, but since he’s spent the best part of three years defending what many deem to be indefensible – the war on Iraq – it’s probably understandable. As my friend the gossip, commented afterwards, the problem with Iraq is that it’s now just about opinions; and Aaronovitch is convinced that he’s right. The result was he launched into these comments, taking them apart, stressing the hollowing out of politics in general, the fact that Africa and climate change were now on the Government’s agenda (for the first time ever) and that there wouldn’t be any substantial difference between a Milburn or Brown premiership.

Whether you agree or not with Aaronovitch’s muscular form of politics or Harris’s search for a feel good form, that last observation definitely seems to be the case. And with the polls showing the likelihood of Labour getting back in relatively easily, that prospect seems ever more likely.

Picking the right places...

Woo-hoo! So I've been offered some cash - OK, not all of it but enough to cover the main cost of a flight. So it looks like I'll be heading here and here in June.

And yes, before anyone asks, it's for academic purposes...

The other 11 September...

Saw Machuca yesterday afternoon in Chelsea. I think it’s a first for me, as I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Chilean feature film before. We were in two minds whether to go, especially because the day was warm and sunny – not something you can guarantee in London in April.

However, we decided to give it a go, especially since it was a preview and the director, Andres Wood, would be there to answer questions afterwards. And I’m glad we did. Well worth seeing, although I don’t think it will get quite the attention it deserves, not least because I can’t see it as a commercial draw in quite the same way as other Latin American films have been, most notably City of God and The Motorcycle Diaries.

Machuca is a drama about the friendship which begins between two 11-year old boys in Santiago on the eve of the military coup in 1973. The two boys come from opposite social spheres: Gonzalo is a child of the middle class while Pedro comes from the nearby shantytown. They first meet – and have to overcome their prejudices of the other – when the priest and principal at Gonzalo’s private school brings in some of the poorer to participate in classes. The film was apparently inspired by Wood’s own school-time experience when the priests at his school brought in around 40 shanty dwellers. He acknowledges this fact by a dedication in the credits.

I don’t think you can pigeonhole Machuca as a coming-of-age film in the conventional Stand By Me mould. While there is some hope offered by the two boys’ friendship, that sentiment is tempered on two fronts: the of the impending military coup; the knowledge that the coup will advantage the upper and middle classes; and the bleak future faced by the poor and marginalised – and which continues until today. Indeed, it is left to one peripheral character, a drunk and absent father, to state that fact: ‘In fifteen years your friend here will be running his father’s company, while you will be cleaning the toilets.’

In the discussion afterwards, Wood said he wanted to make a film which went beyond the politics of the period. This was especially so since he wasn’t sure that a film about Chile in 1973 would be popularly received. As I am regularly informed by those in the know, Chilean society remains divided in the older generation while the young either have little knowledge of the events which occurred or remain apathetic. Consequently he was keen to focus on the story and keep the politics peripheral to any discussion while working with the child actors. One audience member found this contradictory: how could he make a film which was so obviously political and not find himself talking to the children about the period?

But you can see why Wood was so keen to strike a balance, especially while a substantial section of Chilean society continues to believe the coup was a good thing: an overtly pro-Allende film would have discouraged many cinema-goers from attending and reduced its commercial appeal. Also, it may well have switched off many viewers.

When asked who he drew his inspiration from in cinematographic terms, Wood highlighted Patricio Guzman’s La Batalla de Chile, the epic three-part documentary on the last year and a half of the Allende government and the coup. Watching Machuca those influences are very clear: from the street protests and demonstrations by both left and right (including everyone jumping against the middle class ‘mummies’, rich women banging their saucepans in protest and the menacing faces and helmets of the fascist-inspired Patria y Libertad youth marches) and the tangible feel of civil war lingering in the air to the public discussions over the rights and wrongs of the priests’ actions in the school and to the dark and gloomy room in which the family sits, watching the graining footage of the junta – including Pinochet – informing the population that Allende was dead and martial law imposed.

But for me, perhaps the most vivid image is of Gonzalo’s and Pedro’s classroom after the military has taken it over: the walls stripped bare, save for a picture of the junta, and empty desks as one boy after another disappears – a reminder of the disappeared which persisted throughout the military period and over which many families have still not received justice.

Urban life

A sharp knock at the door this morning. It was a policeman asking if we had noticed anything happen in the flats opposite between 6.30 and 7am. Apparently there was a serious assault, but we weren’t very helpful, having only woken up when he knocked.

The police are still out there, having put tape up, while forensics are checking out the area. Meanwhile the local kids are talking to the policemen about their car while the younger ones are playing football nearby.

Election blogging

Given that a slightly more global election is taking place in Rome this week, what chances are there of getting those boys in red to blog the conclave?!

New travel pieces...

So my latest pieces are up at Hackwriters. One is a piece I wrote over a year ago and polished more recently on the different kinds of backpacking styles. The other is my first reflection of Lisbon. I should hopefully be able to crank some more stuff out about the place – for the first time I actually went somewhere and took notes to write up when I got home. It’s amazing how differently you look at things when you do that. But it also means always having your notepad in your hand…

Back

Just got back from Lisbon this afternoon where all was sun and escape from what is increasingly looking like the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of General Election, given the propensity of the Prime Minister and Chancellor to be joined at the hip.

I think I’ve got some suitable material to use by drafting some pieces relating to Lisbon. Suffice to say, I had a good time, overeating on way too many steaks and staying in the sun for too long.

Urban futures

I’m going along to this event on Brazilian cities in a few weeks’ time down at Demos. I’m willing to take bets on how quickly they get around to participatory budgets as an example.

Amazing, isn’t it, that it’s now all the rage although those in the know (ahem) have been extolling its virtues for quite some time.

Brazilian Left

Some extremely useful pieces on Lula’s government including prospects for social welfare reform and the differences between the Workers Party (PT) and PSDB (social democrats) which would be of interest to anyone, like me, interested in the Left. I suspect they may well end up in my dissertation’s bibliography later this year. Unfortunately, they are both in Portuguese, but for a fee I might do a translation!

The newsletter comes from the well-regarded Fundação Perseu Abramo, a think tank associated with the PT, and which I have a soft spot for, on account of their help and support during a spot of fieldwork I did in São Paulo five years ago.

Writing, writing everywhere, but not a penny in return...

Yesterday I got my opus – alright, application for ESRC funding – off to my first testimonial writer. Then it goes around the houses to the second and prospective department before making its way back to the ESRC by 3 May. At least that’s the theory.

At the beginning of the academic year it all seemed so easy, with plenty of time. Instead I was running around trying to complete the research proposal, trying to inflate my research skills, printing it off, checking for mistakes, printing it again and finally banging it in the final post. And that’s after I’d made sense of the 50-page guidance notes, only to realise I’d made an error in the whole process and had to go back to square one.

Now for the next week I’m going to be making myself unpopular with my referees as I harangue them to get it to the relevant department. And is there any guarantee I’ll be successful? About a one in three or four chance.

Slim pickings.

Meanwhile I’m supposed to be revising.

Postgraduate study? I’ve never been so stressed…

Locked away

Found what might potentially be a goldmine for my dissertation on social democracy: a treasure trove of papers from a series of seminars last year and earlier this month.

But for the love of God, can I access any of it? Not unless I’ve registered, which presumably I have to pay for.

Whoever said knowledge was a virtue?

Election titbits

So the race has started and they’re off. Three cities for the Tory leader and five for Charlie K by tea time. And I compare this to my girlfriend’s grumbles about not wanting to make the cross-town trip from Bethnal Green to Kingston for a few hours on Saturday. Puts things in perspective, eh?

But with just over 24 hours gone in the contest, I’ve had my first pieces of election material sent to my inbox. The Lib Dems’ youth section was quickest off the mark, offering to bribe me – bribe? Sorry, I meant pay – with my travel costs to help campaign. If that wasn’t enticing enough they can offer me a sofa or a floor somewhere too. Hmmm... I may take a rain check.

Then CK (does his office still call him that? For the love of God, why?) cranked out his bit, presumably while on his jet to Newcastle (impressive multitasking I thought). It was the usual guff, but what caught my eye was a bit at the bottom asking those with websites and blogs if they would like to plaster ‘Support Lib Dem’ banners all over their patch of cyberspace.

Me? Sorry, I’m declining. How can I be dispassionate and critical of all candidates if I’ve got someone’s label all over this blog? And besides, there could be a further reason, which I must come to: over who to vote for. The latest polls put the electorate in volatile mood and I can sympathise.

For the last 11 years I’ve voted tactically, usually to unseat the Tories. This time round commentators are talking about tactical voting working against Labour. And given Blair’s ill-timed words yesterday – “You [the British people] are the boss” – perhaps it’s about time he got a kicking, especially after he ignored those of us who marched against war two years ago.

Not that I want the Tories back in. But I want Blair’s wings clipped. And that means reducing his majority, boosting the capacity of his awkward squad and making it more difficult for them to pass offensive legislation like that on detention without trial. So how can this be done in Bethnal Green? Well, apparently Respect has a good chance of beating Oona King, but only if it’s done tactically. Unfortunately though, I don’t find George Galloway particularly attractive and the party he leads seems dubious, harking back to a world which only the SWP wants. So what do I do? Hold my nose and vote for him? Is there any other way of unseating Labour here? It’s going to be an interesting few weeks, methinks.

Finally, some entertaining news from the Lib Dem website:

Interested in standing?

If you are interested in becoming a candidate yourself, please email
the Candidates Office (England) or the Scottish or Welsh Liberal Democrats.

So much for the comprehensive all-day development day I underwent a few years ago during which all prospective candidates were assessed and rigorously scrutinised before being unleashed on unsuspecting party members - and if successful, on the public. I can never get that cold, bleak and rainy day back – in Warrington of all places…

Explaining my absence

Am getting my head down to revision what with exams just over a month away. Although somehow there was an oversight of this small detail at chez Burton last month with the girlfriend booking flights to Lisbon for later this week. So chances are there will be little from this end for much of this week but hopefully a few posts on thoughts and reflections regarding the Portuguese capital at the weekend. And then more virtual silence till the exams are done and out of the way.

Does it ever end?!

Culture vultures...

Yes, Easter was quite chilled, although as a full time student what’s four days off here and there? The only difference was more people in the shops and the girlfriend for four days.

Still, we used it productively: booking accommodation in Lisbon for our trip there next week and catching up on a few films lent to me over the weekend: Alexander and Team America.

I’ve been looking forward to seeing Alexander ever since I read Robert Lane Fox’s biography 18 months ago. Imagine my disappointment then, to see Oliver Stone’s version of it. The editing was rather poor and the battle scenes too closed in, too claustrophobic. Although I’m sure it can probably be argued away by the director claiming he wanted to show what it was like to be in the middle of one of those tight battle formations.

As for Colin Farrel’s Irish-accented Alexander and his generals, that didn’t bother me too much. The Macedonians were considered provincial cousins to the majority of Greeks, despite their domination in the period. But Angelina Jolie as Alexander’s mother? Oh, please! Have you ever seen a woman looking that young with a 20-something son? I didn’t think so.

However, compared to other ancient epics recently portrayed on screen, Stone did do a relatively good job of keeping to script. I felt I was sitting there with a checklist (OK, Lane Fox’s book on my knee) making sure all the right boxes were filled. But if there was one major grievance I had was with Stone’s jumping around the story. At the beginning we have Anthony Hopkins briefly going over Philip’s death (Alexander’s father); then, an hour in we have a return to that fateful day, breaking up the sequence. Why, oh why did you do it, Oliver?

As for Team America, alright, it was puerile and silly, but on the mark. Not just in its observations of American military cack-handedness, but the way in which sceptics can all too easily align themselves with dubious elements (you only have to recall Saddam’s meetings with Galloway or Tony Benn’s poor interviewing skills with the dictator).

And finally, a trip to the ICA for the first Batmacumba gig of the year on Saturday night. It looks like DJ Cliffy has found a new protégé which is really mixing up the music – and not always for the best. However, when he takes to the turn table he’s still reassuring: both in his usual choices as well as having his finger on the pulse of new Brazilian musical forms, most notably in the baile funk he’s bringing to his repertoire.

Besides that, I had one of the most original excuses given for an acquaintance not being able to make it - owing to current commitments in Kabul!

Right to life?

You heard it here first: "The presumption, particularly in a situation like this, where you have someone that is at the mercy of others, ought to be in favour of life. And that's the president's view."

So how does George Bush square that with his commitment to capital punishment?

Misleading

Could someone at Liberal Democrat office please have a word with Dick Taverne? He was on the radio this morning (Today, where else?) talking about the supposed virtues of GM. Poor people will benefit, he claimed, notwithstanding the excellent claim made by the NGO chap that it was big agribusinesses who are making use of GM in most countries – not the poor.

But it’s not the supposed pros and cons of GM which gets up my nose. No, it’s the fact that we were listening to a Lib Dem peer who comments seemed to suggest he spoke for the party on this matter. Well, I’m afraid he doesn’t. I seem to recall spending two years working on this and other agricultural issues within the party. And if memory serves me correct at least two conference motions were passed which sought to restrict their use during that time.

Then again, maybe there’s a reason why they’re letting him present the image that the Lib Dems are pro-GM. After all, while Labour and the Tories were slugging it out at the top of the hour on school dinners and throwing travellers in prison, what were the Lib Dems doing? That’s right: outlining plans to make life easier for business.

Nice to see the party’s got its priorities right – not.

Looking at the left

Left wing government in Latin America was on the agenda last Friday. It was a workshop run by the LSE and ISA jointly and ranged from the development of leftist thought to include the experience of governments like Lula’s PT, Chavez in Venezuela and Kirchner in Argentina. There was also time to examine the contrast between the Chilean and Uruguayan models of social democracy and the role of participatory democracy as a leftist project.

Some quite interesting themes came out. Fiona Macauley stressed that the PT and PSDB in Brazil were two quite different animals, both in terms of ideology, support base, history and organisation. But Edmund Amann and Alfredo Saad Filho both pointed out the continuity in macro-economic policy between the two governments. Given the importance of policy outcomes, wasn’t Fiona overstating the differences? I asked. Fiona’s response was to say that the two parties come to these decisions in a different way: broadly the PT is more internally consultative than the PSDB’s technocratic style. Maybe so, I replied; but we need to account for the difference in level of governance too. At the local level the PT has been more participatory in decision-making, but at the state and especially the federal government level, what mechanisms are in place to ensure this happens?

Rick Muir’s paper on the historical experiences which mark out the distinct ideological and programmatic taken by the left in Chile and Uruguay was stimulating. But I wondered whether he overstated the case too much; afterwards I asked him whether we should be less concerned with the two parties’ variation and commitment to negotiated bargains with labour or commitment to greater flexibility and instead focus on their general economic platforms. If so then it’s clear that both parties have accepted the globalisation agenda, indicating the primacy of broader economic trends on the two parties’ outlook over and above those of historical experience during the two dictatorships.

Finally, Gunther Schonleitner presented a paper on the different experiences of participatory democracy by the left in Brazil. What I took from his analysis was the importance of good background conditions being necessary if participation was to be meaningful. In fact he argued that the focus should be more on building up representative institutions as opposed to participatory experiments. But what remains unsaid, is how to build up those institutions if the conditions aren’t ideal. Presumably the impetus for this must come from outside, a factor which cannot be relied upon in many parts of Brazil and Latin America.

Action with organisation?

Sérgio Haddad was at the Institute yesterday, talking about the World Social Forum, of which he is on the organising committee.

During his presentation he pointed out that the purpose of the WSF was not to organise but to provide new space in which deliberation and action can happen. However, he also noted two contradictory features of the Forum, including its relationship with political parties who want to use it as a vehicle to organise and the Forum’s refusal to take a lead in this process.

Sérgio spent some time ruminating aloud on the difficulties this presents to those involved in the Forum: it makes criticism possible and even suggestions regarding alternatives possible. But where it becomes really challenging is in the actual implementation of those ideas. He gave the example of the World Bank.

The Forum’s space gives people opportunities to both criticise the World Bank’s role and activities and suggest ways of dealing with it – either by reforming it from within in, or ‘blowing it up’ (this was before we had even heard about Bush’s proposed candidate for president). But how can two diametrically opposite approaches and goals be achieved?

In other words what would appear to be the Forum’s strength – its apparent ability to break Michels’ iron law of oligarchy – is also its greatest weakness, by failing to provide a clear direction and alternative.

A sad way to end

I feel like a bit of a vulture writing this, especially as it’s at the expense of someone else’s misfortune. But of all the perils associated with blogging (e.g. losing your job), nothing can compare with this.

Rob came to my attention last year in a big Observer spread on blogging. In fact I feel I partly owe my decision to take up the mantle to that story (along with the Bloggerheads campaign to get election candidates reaching out to potential constituents).

Although he does tend to write overly long posts, Rob’s appeal was the fact that he reminded me about my time as an undergraduate a great deal: the awkwardness, inexperience and confusion which revolves around as you try and make sense of both yourself and wider world.

Unfortunately, Rob’s writing seemed to deteriorate. Even he acknowledged it before Christmas, when he reported that readers were complaining that his posts had become those of a pub bore, recounting tedious drinking tales. His sharp observation of the people on his course, the people he lived with and the girl he liked was gone.

Given his decline, the potential risks of Rob’s approach to blogging became greater. Writing about your life and the people within it can be dangerous, not least if someone disagrees with what you’ve written and posted for the whole world to see. I’m not sure I would do the same and over the past year he has reported the fallings out he’s had with friends. But it was never as bad as his last post.

I can see why he would want to give it all up and the gesture he hopes it will show. Though whether that will be enough is doubtful. However, while Rob tries to find his own way to say sorry, it means saying goodbye to a part of his life and the readers who have followed him through the fumblings of early adulthood – and leaving the final chapter unwritten.

Good luck, Rob. You have my sympathy.

Maybe he has a sense of humour?

Oh. My. God.

Is it 1 April?

No.

But how else to explain this?

A tale of two events

Two different kinds of occasion you could not get. Last night it was the annual students’ lecture at Senate House. For the occasion the current director of Chatham House director and a former one at ISA, Victor Bulmer-Thomas, was prevailed upon to give his thoughts on ‘Living with the Mega-Power’.

Restrained, moderate, coherent and balanced, Bulmer-Thomas set out the framework within which states can operate with or against the US. Concepts such as ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power abounded, along with observations on ways to restrain the mega-power, including through treaties and international obligations. Frustratingly, every time I scribbled a point which I thought he had overlooked, sure enough, back he came, addressing precisely that topic. I soon gave up.

Later on and by contrast, what had been billed as a seminar on micro-credit in Venezuela under the auspices of a women’s bank was almost anything but. Walking into the LSE’s refurbished New Theatre (well, it may have been done several years ago but since I haven’t been in there for 10 years, who am I to say?) I momentarily assumed I’d come to the wrong event. Cuban flags and portraits of Che adorned the walls, along with a banner expressing solidarity with the ‘Miami 5’. Richard Gott was in full swing, talking about the channelling of Venezuelan oil money under Chavez directly into the poorer sections of society. Cue enthusiastic cheering. It seemed I had stumbled on a rally.

Nora Castañeda, the president of the women’s bank, gave her speech through a translator. Some numbers were given of the number of projects they had funded, but very little could I remember. Instead we were treated to a diatribe against colonialism and imperialism (conveniently overlooking the bourgeois, elitist and anti-democratic sentiments of the Venezuelan independence movement) and much pro-Chavez endorsement. Not only that, she was cheered when she reported the government’s decision to pass legislation to muzzle the anti-government (and pro-business) big media. Upon finishing she was given a standing ovation – or was that for Chavez?

“Now we open the floor to questions,” the chairwoman said. “We’ve got the room for an hour, but please, don’t take too long to ask your question. Please keep to two minutes.”

Two minutes just for a question? I don’t know what other feel, but that to me was a speech! Taking that as a cue, I surreptitiously slipped out.

What goes around...

Things seem to be happening in cycles at the moment. The end of term on Friday is in sight and whereas this time last week I was wondering how I was going to fit several essays, presentations, additional readings and complete my PhD proposals in before the end of this week, things now appear more manageable. Only one more essay to do: ‘Participation is a potential, not a panacea. Discuss.’

Any takers?

In addition to the everyday matter of studies, I was down at Oxford’s Brazilian Centre on Friday. There was a workshop taking place on ‘Education as a human right’ which was organised by Sérgio Haddad, a visiting professor from São Paulo, whose interest it was.

Some extremely interesting observations were made and for those who lasted to the end of the day, it was frustrating that the former rapporteur to the UN Human Rights commission, Katerina Tomaševski, wasn’t able to stay longer. She made a robust defence as a human right, including the assumption that all children should be in school. But as we know in the developing world, there are other pressures on children, especially work. Her disappearance meant we were unable to enter into any detailed debate about her points.

But it was during the discussion when Maria Malta Campos, a researcher at the Carlos Chagas Foundation, made a comment that I had a eureka moment. “There’s not much written about the politics of education reform and management,” she said, setting a light bulb off in my head. That comment encapsulated what I was trying to do with both my dissertation and my PhD proposal: assess the political opportunities and limitations faced by social democrats in developing and implementing education (and employment) policies. Maria Malta’s words crystallised what I had been trying to articulate for the last two months.

So imagine my disappointment yesterday afternoon when I discovered I wouldn’t be receiving funding from the Institute to do fieldwork later this summer. What if the workshop had been last week, before the application deadline? What if I had used the language which came so easily from Maria Malta?

Needless to say, I’m asking for feedback, especially since my PhD proposal was contingent on the work I had planned to do for my dissertation. So it looks like I will be going back to the sense of panic I felt at the beginning of last week.

Suspended activities

It’s been a month since my last post. For shame! I can only pass on the excuses of a busy term time with the ongoing millstone of the research proposal hanging around my neck. And still it’s not perfect. Grumble, grumble… And this will have to be a short post as well, since it’s back to the grind of essays to churn out too. Can you believe it was only one month ago since the last lot were handed in?

Still, I have a bit of time to crank out the latest bit of Braziliana that I’ve been involved with. After missing its showing in Oxford and LSE the other week, it was third time luck for me last night. Down at Goodenough College (yes, it’s really called that) I saw Joao Moreira Salles’s Entreatos (Intermissions). And apart from the hard seat, it was extraordinarily engrossing.

It follows Lula around over the last month of his presidential campaign. Eschewing the rallies and big events, the director has chosen to focus on those moments in between: Lula on the plane, talking to his staff, at home with his family, having his beard trimmed while on the phone, choosing a tie for the debate, and talking about his turquoise VW which he courted his wife in.

It’s not a film about Lula the politician, but Lula the man. Admittedly, opinion was divided afterwards between those who disliked him, and those who liked him. Personally, I found him down to earth. In the question and answer sessions afterwards Joao was asked about his editing; was what he had cut an accurate representation of the time he spent with him? How much of Lula which we saw was him or his political persona? When did the act – as all politicians are prone to do – switch off?

Joao said that the access he had received was unprecedented. There’s even a moment when Lula’s campaign organiser and now chief of staff, Jose Dirceu, snaps at the film crew. Not even he was informed about the filming which was to take place. Lula never asked for a say about the final cut, which encouraged Joao to be as fair as possible. But as I said to friends after the showing, to what extent was he granted access in the first place had it not been a sympathetic portrayal.

One thing Joao could not help but notice was the absolute lack of introspection in Lula. After a few days you forget the camera is there and behave as you would otherwise do. But not once did he ever ask himself if he was up to the job. I asked Joao whether he plans to make a follow-up to the story: of how the political system and machine affects his ability to act. But he doesn’t want to; it doesn’t interest him. Besides, he claims that it’s inevitable that it will happen; that he will be swallowed up.

I would recommend this film, even to those (i.e. the majority!) who know nothing nor care about Brazilian politics. People will be split over whether they agree with his politics or his personality. But two things cannot be denied: one, the sheer charisma of the man; the second, the symbolism that Lula in 2002 represented. This is a man who is the living embodiment of someone who pulled himself out of a life of penury and manual labour, through the union movement and to become president of the Republic. If nothing else, that tale is one which symbolised his election: as the one moment when all the promises about politics being open to all, was finally fulfilled; when the dreamer finally reached a position to put into practice his ambitions.

Hidden London

I received this book for my birthday on Friday and I can't say enough about it. How did I ever manage without it before?

For instance, little did I know that back in the eighteenth century two strike leaders were hanged outside the corner where my local tube station and a pub, the Salmon and Ball, meet. Or that the place was used as a fascist meeting spot during the 1930s. Or that a friend of mine lives a stone's throw away from where Jack 'The Hat' McVitie was murdered by the Kray twins.

The only danger is that I'm already proving a bore to friends and family, having spent the entire weekend starting conversations with "Did you know..." At this rate I won't have anyone left to give me the revised edition for my birthday next year.

Snakes and ladders

So got the second lot of essays in to the Institute yesterday. Hooray!

Now got to sit down and start on a presentation (on political parties and elections in Latin America) and the PhD statement. Boo.

Missed connections

Listening to the Today interview with NATO’s secretary general this morning I realised that it was a Dutchman and not George Robertson any more.

It reminded me of my one and only moment with Robertson, who before joining NATO had been Britain’s defence minister.

It was about two years ago and I had just been watching my MP’s performance at oral questions on the Parliamentary channel. He had come in to ask a question about agricultural subsidies, I think.

Moments later I got a phone call. Robertson’s burr reverberated through the earpiece as he enthusiastically told me to congratulate my boss on an excellent speech. He had never heard anything like it before.

Oh, OK, thanks, I answered, a little bemused. And what was he talking about? I asked. Silence followed at the other end. Eventually he responded. Who was he talking to?

You’ve come through to the Lib Dem research centre, I said, and you’re talking to the agriculture researcher. Are you referring to the debate on farm reform which we’ve just been speaking on?

Sorry, wrong number was the reply, followed by a dead line.

Not holding my breath

Yesterday I posted my application for the Anglo-Brazilian Society award. The Society gives one annual scholarship a year to undertake research in Brazil. Part of the application consists of a 3000-word essay on some aspect of Brazilian culture, history, etc.

Imagine my disappointment when I completed what was proving to be a real millstone around my neck (initially I had loads of ideas but little way of putting them together in a clear logical way), only to discover I was 1000 words under. One of the reasons was the need to strip away some material which didn’t seem to bear any direct relevance to the rest of the essay.

Still, I finished it and will now wait to see what happens. I’m not holding out or expecting too much – I’m sure there are plenty of doctoral students who have written far better pieces than mine.

As for my piece, it was on the challenges facing Brazilians in London – not exactly the subject I propose to study this summer – but one I’ve been interested in for awhile. Perhaps I might put up some excerpts later, when I get the refusal slip.

Feeling my age

I thought it was because my birthday on Friday that I felt I’m getting old. But it’s worse than that. And no, it wasn’t because I saw a policeman and realised he looked younger than me (although that has happened as well recently). No, it was this morning I was listening to the radio, minding my own business when I realised exactly why I’m feeling my age.

It was the last story on the Today programme: three commentators including one of the MPs I used to work for, Norman Baker, and the IPPR’s Simon Retallack. They were talking about climate change.

Simon was one of the students in my International Relations class at LSE during my first year. Even then he was an ecological militant. I can’t remember a political conversation with him which didn’t turn back to environmental issues one way or the other. And frustratingly, he was always so self-assuredly right in his views – a regular politician.

This morning wasn’t the first time he’s popped up in my radar. The same happened a few weeks ago on Newsnight. And if having a visual or audible reminder that your generation is steadily getting older (and supposedly more respectable), there’s also another survivor from that same shared class in October 1995: James Crabtree, who seems to appear everywhere these days, from TV to print.

Was it something in the water or in Geoffrey Stern’s teaching? Maybe it was because we all ended up on the student paper. I don’t really know, other than to say that there’s something unsettling about seeing your peers in the media; it makes me feel I’m getting older.

You may well ask how old I’m going to be on Friday. Only 29, for goodness sake! Were I at least another five or ten years older it would be OK – there just seems something odd about seeing people my age burbling away, no matter how knowledgeable they might be.

The noose tightens

Two, down, one to go. The Lib Dems are having to re-select their candidate for Bethnal Green & Bow ahead of the General Election. Apparently our previous candidate resigned last November, although I missed it all as I wasn't at the AGM.

So on Sunday night I was called by one of the prospective candidates; that was followed by a second just before I left the house for class today. I'm waiting to see whether I get a call from the third before the papers go out.

I always liken these conversations to a fencing session. You know they are calling you to ask for your support, but they don't want to be too obvious. You, meanwhile, want to keep your options open and avoid committing yourself. The caller moves forward for the ask; you step back and dodge. They try again; this time you parry. If you want to be particularly cruel, keep them on the phone and avoid answering their questions. Better yet, ask them the really tricky question: after all, if they can't answer well to party members, what hope at the election.

Eventually though you have to make a decision. Which I did. Now I'm waiting for the ballot paper to arrive.

Satisfying

I may be a little quiet for the next few days. I've got some essays to get through, including one for funding purposes later this year. But I've got some material up at Brazzil, for anyone who might be interested (with the usual readers' rants...).

I may still be working on my dissertation topic (I've got the general theme in mind); I just need to get the specific case studies and policy areas to analyse.

It's tough: juggling readings for class, essays for the three course instructors, reading and putting together a PhD proposal and squeezing in time to write a fourth essay for this summer's research grant.

It makes for full time attention, but I'm not complaining: I wouldn't have it any other way. How many people get to do what they really want?

Unsettling viewing

Two good pieces of separate viewing yesterday which come together: first, how did I miss The Power of Nightmares the first time around? Second, some dubious points about George Galloway on last night’s Newsnight which raise questions.

The Power of Nightmares is a three-part series shown last year (transcript of first part is here). It looks at the way fear has been hyped up in America and in the Middle East and the need to exploit it to deliver the change demanded by both neo-conservatives and Islamic extremists. Fascinating stuff, with both sides drawing on the failure and consequences of liberal values and practices and the unquestioning belief that they are right.

Comparing them to each other recalls the comments often made of the Nazis and Stalinists: they might have hated each other, but they have more in common than they realise. So to with the neo-cons and Islamic extremists: both believe their values are right and any action is justified, whether it be killing non-Muslims or claiming that a lack of evidence means something far more nefarious is happening.

As a side observation, the only troubling aspect was the relative portrayal of Kissinger as a moderate. Being a pragmatist the narrator seemed to suggest that one of America’s most dubious foreign secretaries was seeking accommodation with the Soviets in the 1970s.

Right, that includes turning a blind eye to the Chilean coup, the illegal bombing of Cambodia, the ratcheting up of the Vietnam War as a prelude to disengagement.

Hmm…

Regarding the Newsnight piece, I don’t know who he was, but a disaffected Labour voter was searching for someone to vote. I’m afraid when he interviewed the Lib Dems they were portrayed as political opportunists: Lembit Opik playing it simply, seeking to entice him by spewing out Focus headlines and Mark Oaten revealing the inner thinking of the party over the public-private sector.

As for Galloway, he left the interviewer uneasy. He argued that the Iraqi resistance was justified because it was fighting an occupying power (the Americans), which he saw as morally equivalent to the Nazis. It’s a shame the logic of his argument wasn’t pursued further. When asked he said that all British people would have joined the resistance against Hitler had the country been invaded in 1940; he didn’t say whether that resistance would have been justified in attacking its own citizens who might have opted to work for the police, schools, hospitals, etc.

Even if it was hypothetical the interviewer failed to press him on whether it was acceptable for the French resistance to attack not only Vichy leaders but also those who worked for the Germans during the occupation. OK, it wasn’t entirely relevant to whether or not to vote for Galloway, but it would be interesting to have heard his argument.

Gorgeous George is supposed to be in my neck of the woods next week: as a Parliamentary candidate, he's going to be sppeaking about saving our fire engine (I think) in Bethnal Green - perhaps I might get a chance to say a few words?

Ultimately though, what I was left with by both programmes was why I’m always wary of people who claim they have the answer – whether they are religious or political (and that includes Galloway as well as Bush). All this certainty and lack of fuzziness probably shows why I’m a sceptic by nature.

Not to be repeated

They were asking for it, weren’t they? Two of the three judges on ITV’s Pop Idol-format show, Vote for Me, John Sergeant and Lorraine Kelly, should have known better. Identifying which candidate they didn’t like only meant he or she would win. And sure enough, I’ve found out (after the event of course – much in keeping with other things in my life!) that Rodney Hylton-Potts won.

Rodney, if you remember, is for castrating paedophiles, bringing an end to immigration, reducing the UK’s population by a third and spent time at Her Majesty’s pleasure for mortgage fraud. Given the closeness of his views and experience of the penal system which some in UKIP share, I’m surprised he’s an independent.

Last week I penned a few posts of the show. Already you could see the path it was going down, with only two of the final being liberal. And while I would have been interested to follow the final show (if only to shout abuse at the screen) frankly I had a social life to leave.

I was therefore spared the image of Rodney beating the single issue candidate, Eileen, who is running a one-woman crusade to bring down phones masts (and likely to be snapped up by some Lib Dems somewhere; she does have that slightly bossy middle-aged woman manner which I’ve come across on the stump).

The show’s presented, Jonathan Maitland, told the Sunday Times that “The winner is a comedy fascist nutter and a cross between Lord Brocket and Mussolini. It’s not embarrassing that he won because we’ll now respect our real politicians more.”

I don’t know about you, but that is spin worthy of the new Labour machine when it was running at its finest.

But what while all the media attention is on the loathsome Rodney and his views, what does it say about the people who voted for him? Or maybe it’s the particular demographic which watches ITV? Would the result have been different had it been on the BBC?

I doubt the show’s producers will be running this show again for quite some time – well, at least for another four years.

Why bother?

It's a bummer, isn't it? All that hard work preparing for your tax cut proposals, only to have one of your supposed chums cross the floor to the other side.

What surprises me is that it hasn't happened before now. Since Howard took on the job the Tories have barely made an impression (and no, grasping at the European elections is just sounding desperate).

All it means is that post-election it's going to be fun and games at Central Office as the blood gets spilled once again.

Does seem a bit of a shame after last weeks' interview with him perched on the desk of that gleaming white open-desk set-up they have in Victoria Street (did you notice the younger workers had been strategically placed behind him to suggest a fresher air?).

Contest

I came across this yesterday. Always nice to find there's financial advantage to the one who wins - although it'll probably mean more entrants than might otherwise be the case.

Nonetheless, might be worth a flutter, if only because it's political writing - which is the kind of thing I'm more inclined to do. Of course I won't win, but if I do give it a pop, at least I'll have something to post here!

They don't say anything about nationality. Do you think I can get away with a Latin American bio?

Back to the future?

All the material on the apparel sector in Mexico and Central America points to one positive outcome: you can draw in TNCs to kickstart the industry and then as it develops perhaps it will generate not only greater production but demand for the creation of domestic firms. Those firms can then (hopefully) compete against the big boys both in the domestic and export markets.

But is it evident that will happen? Even assuming the supposed 'upgrading' occurs, will the domestic economy benefit? Not without a government firmly committed to national development and with a clear industrial policy, like those in East Asia. Without that chances are TNCs will take charge of the process.

But how do we go about creating such measures in Latin America? Not only does the region still suffer from the legacy of the collapsed state-led model of the 1960s and 1970s, how can the business community and relevant political actors be encouraged to develop their domestic sectors? It's going to be hard, not least because of the tendency for Latin America's elite to look towards Miami as a place to put their money in, rather than in local firms.

I'm hugely simplifying, of course, but it is a poser.

Wankers

I do wonder about some people.

Last week's post at Brazzil has generated a long (by most posts' standards) thread - although not much about the actual content of the post. From what I can tell there's been some observations of political views (including about the US presidential election - sorry where did I make any reference to it?) before it degenerated into a slanging match between suitably anonymous 'guests'.

As for comment about my post, two stand out:

1. 'who the Fuck is this Gay Burton, is it Guy? gee I missed. Anyways your
article is full of shit.'

2. 'AND HERE IS THE MORONIC CONCLUSION'... Nevertheless, don't be too
surprised if something is worked out which will satisfy all
sides. WHAT A PUTZ'

For these two 'guests', who conveniently withheld their names, the following responses might be made:

1. Besides the point about my name (which I think alludes to the
prejudices of the person in question), it's not entirely clear why they
have that opinion of the article.

2. The poster feels free to make his own conclusion without offering an
alternative. Furthermore, it completely overlooks the concept of the jeito, which is the way by which resolution of competing interests might be brought about (da Matta is particular good on this)

There are those who may feel that I shouldn't have bothered to respond given that they have nothing to offer than waste the electricity bill by posting abuse.

In fact I did give some thought to whether it was worth the time efforts. But it reminded me of a post made by Bloggerheads which criticised the blocking up of debate and dialogue on MPs' and PPCs' blogs.

It's extremely regrettable since I'm sure Rodney (who manages Brazzil) was keen to expand debate on issues and introduced the comment option. But a small minority seem determined to indulge in abuse and unjustified attacks without offering any useful contribution, giving the wider blogging community a bad name.

End of the week thoughts

After the first week back at classes, just a couple of observations which I’ve made from the readings and discussions:

On democracy

If procedural notions of democracy (i.e. elections, parties, free media, civil rights) take precedence over more substantive issues like social rights (health care, education, etc), how can public support be secured? Failure to deliver on the latter in Latin America serves to discredit democracy. Indeed, it’s unsurprising that last year’s Latinobarometer showed that a sizeable proportion of people would prefer any other form of government, including authoritarian, if it will deliver social benefits.

Then there’s the difficulty of defining what democracy actually is. This is so difficult that scholars tend to focus on the former rather than the latter. This has implications for democratic practice, since governments find it easier to implement that form rather than provide the more comprehensive approach (e.g. Washington’s preference in Afghanistan and Iraq).

On poverty

The study of social policy in Latin America takes the starting point that universal provision has never been available, unlike other regions of the world. There’s also the problem that what is spent is both never enough nor spent efficiently.

What’s interesting is the distinct social policy discourse by Latin America area specialists on one hand and those dealing with (usually) North America on the other. The former argues for more comprehensive social policy provision to support the poor while the latter maintains the neo-liberal argument that welfare creates dependency. Yet in much of the Latin American literature that argument never seems to be made.

Is this the danger of area studies? By focusing on one region we overlook the arguments made about other societies and parts of the world?

It can't be right, can it?

It’s a depressing state of affairs when someone can be sacked for blogging. And given that it’s someone who by his own account does it in his own time and failed to be approached for a quiet word before disciplinary action being taken is troubling.

Of course I don’t know all the details, having only his side of the story on his blog. But given that work only forms a small part of his blog it does seem excessive. It also bothers me that it was one of my favourite bookstores which did this, Waterstone’s, where the blogger worked for 11 years. That’s shame because the store in Malet Street has a really good selection and it would be a shame to boycott it.

Then again, when was the last time I bought a book?! Usually I get review copies.

Ah – but what do I do with my Waterstone’s book tokens I got for Christmas? Hmm, I may have to forego them for CDs and DVDs down at HMV…

One down...

...so now they are six. And thank God the two liberals are still left standing, with the woman, Amanda, who ‘felt safer under Thatcher’ being sent packing. But there’s still that ghastly anti-immigrant chap, who I now know is called Rodney, who was advocating the castration of paedophiles. It was even too much for Kelvin McKenzie. But I suspect that he will probably make it down to the last three, with the judges all united against him and noisy (although isolated) support in the studio.

Julie, the single mother who makes a virtue of being single class, did well again, while Eileen, the single-issue campaigner against phone masts continued to do her stuff. The young Asian candidate, Irfan, did well and showed McKenzie up by going into detail about the problems facing the NHS, in particular bed blocking.

And wheelchair-bound Kevin sounded surprisingly like a Lib Dem when he advocated a local income tax – surely the party hasn’t got to him? His only setback was when he was asked to set out how it would be done in detail – not something easy to do in 30 seconds or less. While I doubt he has any worked out details, I know that based on Lib Dem figures it’s erroneous to suggest that everyone would pay less; some will pay more, as I discovered to my cost last year when a voter said he wouldn’t vote for me on that basis.

After canvassing the night before, last night they were taken to the studio for radio interviews and a meeting with former Independent MP Martin Bell and current one, Richard Taylor. It was quite entertaining to see Amanda struggling to explain her ideas on air – I can just imagine her being on the other side, giving the professional politicians a hard time. Now she had to take it!

Finally, it’s still troubling me that almost all of them seem to adopt what they think is typical politicians pose during their presentations and question answering sessions. It’s as if they can’t be entirely natural. The only one who doesn’t is Julie – but I can’t decide whether her easy-going manner is natural or put on.

Time will tell.

A mark against them

So far I’ve caught both programmes of the pseudo-Pop Idol Vote for Me TV show, where contestants put themselves forward to the general public to be selected as a candidate in this year’s General Election. Normally I wouldn’t watch these things, but as it’s about politics and touches on something I did last year (running as an unsuccessful candidate, remember?), I felt honour bound to make an effort.

And deeply troubling it is too. Of the seven contestants to choose from only two can be classed as liberal; the rest are all tough, hang ‘em and flog ‘em types. If this is a reflection of Britain today, I’m worried.

One, Rodney (about the only one whose name I can remember), has some truly repellent views. He wants to stop all immigration. Now. No more. He’s against Turkey entering the EU and for making Britain ‘great’ again. On top of that he’s a convicted fraudster – and then he had the sheer gall to compare himself to Nelson Mandela!

Sounds to me if he gets booted off the show UKIP will be beating a rush to his door. I’m slightly worried though that given two of the judges – John Sergeant and Lorraine Kelly – have both set themselves against him, he might actually win support from the public.

One woman also talked about asylum seekers and was clearly confused. She argued that we should only take asylum seekers who make a request to come to this country before they leave their own. Sorry? Excuse me? That’s precisely why they’re leaving: to seek asylum. As if that was enough asylum seekers should only be allowed here if they can be shown to contribute to the economy. If nothing else, her confused logic just shows the influence that the Daily Mail has had on a whole generation of people.

There’s another woman who is quite clearly a single-issue candidate, railing about phone masts. When challenged about the lack of evidence to support her belief that phone masts caused her breast cancer, she did little to respond. In other words, having an infirmity or suffering an illness means you can’t question her beliefs.

Then there’s the tokenism that I find a little worrying: a wheelchair bound lecturer, a young Asian doctor (both of them the most liberal of the bunch), and a working class single mum…

To be fair, of the three, I think the last has what it takes. They were shown canvassing on the doorstep last night and she was the most natural. Unlike the others she didn’t enter into an argument with the punters and simply asked them what their concerns were, tailoring her response accordingly. She’s also got a good central idea: ensuring that one or two civil servants are directed responsible for an estate so the buck stops with them. In some respects it’s rather like the neighbourhood idea which some Lib Dem councils pioneered in the 1980s, including Tower Hamlets. I suspect she might be a good community campaigner.

As for the judges, as much as I find Kelvin McKenzie the most offensive of the lot, at least he calls things as he seems them. I disagree with most of what he says, but I suspect that many viewers will probably agree with him.

As they probably do with the more illiberal candidates.

Depressingly.

New program

I see the Latin American Centre at Oxford has introduced a new program: the MSc in Public Policy of Latin America. Candidates will be able to specialise on Brazil according to the Centre for Brazilian Studies, one of the research centres at the university.

I haven’t checked the syllabus yet (it’s a pdf which always seems to crash on my home computer), but it does show a keenness by the teaching section at Oxford to be more practical. While the MPhil in Latin American Politics is useful for those using it as a stepping stone to further research, this new MSc looks like a good bet for practitioners. It should mean a better profile for the centre in the region as well.

But does it mean that Oxford is able to compete on a level playing field with American schools? Probably not, since there are simply dozens of centres devoted to Latin America there, compared to the handful here. But what handful we do have tends to be pretty good if I do so say myself! (do I have to register an interest as a postgrad student at ISA?)

Staing the obvious

Down at the Brazil reunion down in Wimbledon yesterday. Every six months or so there’s always a gathering of former British expats who lived in Rio down at a pub near the Common. I don’t know how long it’s been going on for, but I suspect my mother and two of her friends were the prime instigators. Every time it takes place yet more people show up; at the rate it’s going soon the whole pub will be taken over.

Usually it’s the older generations who go. Although my siblings and I come along, I think it’s more for moral support than the prospect that our friends for nursery school will be there. I think we’re usually the only family to come out en masse. Apart from the excellent sausages and mash they do in the pub, I’m not sure how many more times I can endure people I don’t know saying to me, “I remember when you were so high”, while lowering their hand to knee height.

Despite being closer to 30 than I am to 20, I would have thought the comment needn’t be said.

New year, new exercise regime

So watched Jump Britain on C4 last night, the follow up to the one in London nearly two years ago.

There’s no way I’m ever going to be able to do what they do. But it has motivated me to do something that’s not been done for awhile: capoeira.

So there I was, out on the nearby park this morning, putting my body through the motions. I’m trying to make sure I haven’t forgotten the moves while trying to build up strength and stamina – all gone to seed after three months off (ostensibly because I had nada dinero). OK, I still need to watch the pennies, but what the hell; you only live once.

So Simon, Erico, Heidi and the rest: watch out. I’m coming back (at the Space in Hoxton if anyone’s interested).

Just as long as I can sit and watch most of the first session…

101 uses for Gordon Taylor #67

I’ve suddenly realised another use for Gordon Taylor, when he finally hangs his boots up as chair of the Professional Footballers Association. Having listened to him on Today this morning justifying Roy Carroll’s failure to ‘fess up that the ball crossed in the line in the Man U-Spurs game, Sinn Fein might consider offering him a job.

Earlier in the programme Martin McGuinness was denying any alleged link between the IRA and last month’s bank robbery in Belfast. As he does whenever the IRA is under suspicion (Colombia, anyone?).

Can you imagine it? Taylor and Sinn Fein – a match made in heaven (or is that hell, where black is white and 2 + 2 = 5?).

A bit of a mismatch?

Happy New Year! A bit of a late start I will admit – and it must have looked like I nodded off at Christmas. But nothing could be further from the truth. Up until the holiday period I was busy putting together the first draft of a doctoral proposal (still to be completed before the end of this week…); afterwards I felt entitled to a bit of a break!

That included watching Uncle Adolf on ITV last night – a drama based on Hitler’s relationship with his niece. But was it just me or did the actor playing him not sound uncannily like Charles Kennedy? It was most unnerving…

You cannot be serious!

Fish was on the brain when I got up this morning. Blame Radio 4’s Today. Its lead story was about a new government expert report arguing for ‘no-fishing zones’ off parts of the British (read Scottish) coast to help boost stocks. It would be coupled with a reduction in fishing capacity as well.

The logic behind this idea is that by stopping fishing would not increase fish in those parts but presumably tempt them into other areas where fewer boats would snaffle them.

You can’t really fault it – except for the minor fact of the fishermen themselves. They were on the radio grumbling about what this would mean to fishing communities in Scotland. As if the current situation, whereby annual quotas are decided upon every December, giving rise to the same predictable headlines about destroying communities, etc, etc – and just before Christmas.

Life in a fisherman’s home can’t be fun.

Having spent a couple of years at the helm (pardon the pun) on the subject for the Lib Dems in Parliament, I think it would be great to get a resolution to this crisis. And it would also mean stopping the Lib Dem spokesman, Andrew George, from his ridiculous posturing on the last day of the Parliamentary session and six days before Christmas, two years ago:

“Will the Minister consider the recall of Parliament next week to ensure that we have the chance to discuss… the fishing industry?”

The short answer: no. What odds for the same this year?

It's the hypocrisy I find so hurtful...

'Democracy has never functioned as well in Pakistan as it is now.'
‘President’ Pervez Musharraf, Newsnight, 6 December.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister’s spokesman claimed during a briefing that Pakistan was ‘moving in the right direction… towards full democracy’.

Can it really only be five years ago that Labour was trying to score political points of the Tories when Musharraf seized power in a coup?

'The principle at stake is that it is for the people of Pakistan to make up their own mind, and the place to do that is at the ballot box. There will be many friends of Britain throughout Africa and Asia who are dismayed to learn that the modern Tory party endorses a military coup.'
Robin Cook, 2 November 1999

I wonder what has happened to bring both Musharraf and Blair together at a press conference yesterday…

Ah yes, silly me. The so-called war on terror. In this new world down is the new up, left is right and dictatorship, democracy. Sorry, what were we exactly fighting for again?

Strange mix

The girlfriend came back from Santiago, Chile at the weekend. We won’t go into the saga of her epic journey across two continents, including a change of time from 9am to 5pm, to 10pm and then back to 8pm, the possibility of two separate arrivals, either at Heathrow’s Terminal 2 at 5.15pm or Terminal 1 only 15 minutes later and her eventual arrival at Gatwick…

Iberia, as you might imagine, is not our favourite airline company at the moment.

No, what I wanted to comment on were the two editions of a magazine she brought me back to read, Cosas. She said that she thought I might find them of interest, since they have plenty of interviews with the president, Valparaiso’s mayor and other political luminaries. But they sit oddly with plenty of spreads about the Spanish and British royal families and stories about Chilean celebrities professing their undying love for one another.

It’s rather like a cross between Hello and the Spectator, reaching to two different markets, both him and her.

That could never happen here.

Or could it?

Balancing markets and social justice

Outsourcing – good or bad? That was the angle for a presentation done by two of us this morning. Which side did I get? The pro- side, which meant that I was for the chop, this being an Institute concerned with social justice.

But what’s noticeable is the number of those who are pro-market who recognise its limitations and the problems that the current globalisation process presents, including lost jobs and localised economic recession. Contrary to what the anti-globalisation movement thinks, it’s not a case of ‘them and us’, but ‘how do we resolve it’?

I can see the advantage of the anti-globalisation movement trying to demonise the other side for not caring. But the reality is much more complex than that, with many on the pro-market wanting not ‘free markets’ but ‘fair markets’. Even this report from McKinsey (that bastion of anti-globalisation, I don't think!), which I had to read to prepare for the class, notes the need for effective public policies where jobs are lost.

The problem though, is how to do this? This is of particular concern to social democrats. As a friend put it to me on Friday night, ‘Almost everyone accepts the market now as the best means of allocating resources. But where social democrats fall down – and they need to have a response – is to square the issue of social justice. The challenge for them is to say in what circumstances can social justice trump the market – and in a systematic and thorough way.’

Quite.

Sex comedy, Peruvian style

I failed to make a single film at the Latin American film festival at the beginning of the month. But luckily for me, there’s a second, which is coming to its end. And this week I managed to make one of the films, along with a group from the Institute.

It was Pantaleon y las Visitadoras (Pantaleon and the Visitors), a Peruvian comedy and based on a book by Mario Vargas Llosa. I knew nothing about it when I sat down, which meant I had no expectations. But it was quite good – as Peruvian comedies go. Perhaps a little heavy in its humour, but a change from the usual Hollywood guff.

The film follows an army captain who is charged with opening a brothel for soldiers. As you can imagine, he approaches his work in a thoroughly disciplined manner; the humour is directed at this contrast between the informality of language among the prostitutes and the military organisation of Pantaleon.

I’m not sure how many others (apart from my Institute colleagues) picked up on it, but I was struck by Vargas Llosa’s sly comment within the film. We looked at the role of the military in class a few weeks ago, and the apparent differences between the Peruvian military government (1968-80) compared to those elsewhere on the continent.

Whereas those in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, etc were conservative, anti-communist and repressive, the Peruvians gained international attention for taking power away from the oligarchs precisely because of the failure of the state to develop the country. So while other Latin American armies were incarcerating subversives, Peru’s generals were introducing land reform and creating development projects around the country.

References to the army’s creation of a sex industry (with a double-edged meaning there) and Pantaleon’s literacy classes to the Indians (including writing on the board 'Yo amo a mi Peru' – 'I love my Peru') are all pointers in this direction.

But then I’m sure many others will just say I’ve been working too hard and it’s time to take a break! Perhaps. Term ends next week.

The dangers of prediction

I am also in the process of putting together what I hope will be more than just a provisional title for my dissertation. I’m aiming to write on the role of participatory democracy and mechanisms as a way of developing social democracy in Brazil. I’ll be using the PT, with its efforts in developing participatory budgets in Porto Alegre and other cities, as the main agent of this process.

I also spent the weekend skimming through what limited material I have on social democracy on my shelves: Anthony Giddens’ The Third Way and Will Hutton’s The State We’re In. I think Hutton’s is probably most relevant, not least because his book highlights the importance of underpinning a dynamic economy with constitutional reform. Rather like what the PT is doing.

Unfortunately though, he’s a little shaky in his endorsement of East Asian economies as possessing a dynamism and vibrancy lacking in the UK – not least because less than three years after the book first came out the financial crisis hit the region, producing much angst-ridden material suggesting they weren’t as active as they first appeared.

Ah, the joy of hindsight!

Not a clue

Having had a relatively heated debate in our weekly seminar on trans-national corporations (topic: globalisation), I’m still no clearer to knowing one way or the other: are TNCs a cause or effect of capitalism? And if they are one or the other, does that influence the way they can be regulated?

Answers on a postcard, please.

Uncheery telly

Watched Bus 174 yesterday, the documentary about the bus hijacking in Rio four years ago. The film spliced the footage of the drama on the bus with interviews of the policemen and hostages, as well as those who knew the hijacker and a gang leader. There were also studies of the conditions in which criminals are treated in Brazil’s prisons which made the point that the hijacker, Sandro, had very few options open to him once the police surrounded him and the media descended on the area.

Not happy viewing by any stretch, but it was well-made and highlights the social problems which exist in Brazil. The director argues that the way the Brazilian state treats its underclass (violently) means that it responds violently as well. In the short interview he gives on the DVD after the feature itself, when asked if he thinks his film has helped changed society, he gives a no – but then qualifies it by saying it would require a change in society as well.

Then again, how likely is that, when the policemen who were accused on killing Sandro in the back of the police car after the crisis ended, were found not guilty by a jury?

Even though I sympathise with the plight of street children, condemn the brutality of vigilante groups who murder them and the lack of training and respect for human rights in the police, two things kept sticking out in my mind throughout the film.

First, how many viewers tried to imagine what the hostages were going through at the time? When that’s presented on TV and without explaining the background, how do you think most people will react? Most likely, just as the jury members did.

Second, what was going through Sandro’s mind throughout? He must have known he was in a no-win situation. He could never have escaped police attention, especially after embarrassing them so publicly on Brazil’s TV sets. So why take on the state? I’m sure he didn’t want to die, but given police brutality, wasn’t it fairly likely?

Reviewing ambition

So just sent off my first book review in awhile. It was on a pretty dry subject, especially if you’re not into political science. Hopefully it should appear at the Latin American Review of Books soon enough. I found Latamrob as it seems to be called through the bulletin boards at the Institute. The chap who runs it is an academic over at Queen Mary. Knowing I’m studing politics he sent me David Samuels’ book, Ambition, Federalism and Legislative Politics in Brazil to cover. I hope he likes it.

I need to get back into the habit of writing. Since the project on Sao Paulo ended at the beginning of the month I’ve been getting out of practice at regular scribbling. With the Christmas break just around the corner I must get started again.

Another blog

Finally, now that I'm back on the blog, I should mention Andrew's latest reincarnation, this time in the form of a political, Westminster-inspired blog. Not that he needs the plug, but since he helped out with the Sao Paulo project we had at least one reader in his girlfriend, Zan (you mean you haven't seen it? It's available here).

Due for refurbishment

I was hoping to have a longer chat with Richard Gott last night, not least because I wanted to pick up on his book about Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, In the Shadow of the Liberator.

It was written about four years ago, which means it’s missing out a lot of the most notable events which have happened since: his re-election, the oil strike, the aborted coup and his referendum win. My reading was that Gott seemed a little starry-eyed by the so-called Bolivarian revolution unleashed by Chavez – I remain sceptical, not least because it’s not entirely clear that the structures he’s building will last beyond him (a la Fujimori).

Gott did tell me that he’s in the process of updating the book. I hope he takes a more critical view in it. The main concern I had with the 2000 edition was that there was an awful lot of Chavez’s history and his plans for his presidency and not enough analysis of what he was putting in place. While the definitive work can’t be written after Chavez leaves office, a study of his ‘Bolivarian revolution’ to date will be extremely useful.

New look through a new book

It’s been awhile since I last wrote anything on this blog. I’ve been getting a bit slack. Anyway, a quick update: last night we had the launch of Richard Gott’s new book, Cuba: A New History, over at Senate House. Over drinks afterwards he claimed that it was to be a short history, but at 600 pages plus, the title had to be ditched. This he followed with a toast to the Cuban revolution, producing all sorts of awkwardness amongst the assembled ranks.

The point of his talk was to highlight aspects of Cuban historiography which hasn’t received much of an airing to date. Most striking was his focus on race relations on the island, much of which is currently being investigated. However, in his overview on the state of historic scholarship he pointed out that almost all of it stops at 1959 – no-one it seems is prepared to write the first draft of the Cuban revolution until Fidel shuffles off the stage.

Which does pose some questions about race since 1959. Given the lack of writing on the period, domestically the Cubans themselves haven’t focused on the subject either. What does exist has generally been the result of black American scholars, but it still remains a peripheral issue.

Given that we have to come up with dissertation titles the week after next, perhaps a student currently undergoing a crisis on what topic to write might consider this as an option?

A modest proposal

Not that anyone will pay any attention – after all, there are plenty of other blogs more widely read than mine. But since it’s Election Day across the pond, I thought I’d add my penny’s worth as well.

It’s frustrating that what happens in this poll will affect us all, even though none of us here have a say in the final choice. It got me thinking of an ironic piece I read in The Guardian around the time of Clinton’s second election win. Then, as now, the same point was made: we would be affected no matter what. So the journalist suggested that the solution for Britain was to join the US as the 51st state.

That way we would have direct influence over the presidential election, especially because the distribution of votes in the Electoral College would mean that we would be crucial. Look at this way: California is the biggest state in the Union, with 35m people. This is around 12% of the national population of approximately 291m. It has 54 votes in the College, which is 10% of the total 538.

Now assume Britain was a state. Our 59m would increase the size of the United States population to 350m. We would be more than one-and-a-half times the size of California and correspond to nearly 17% of the total population. And although I don’t know exactly how the Electoral College divides up its votes, assuming the same proportion as California’s would mean Britain emerged with up to 90 votes.

Which would mean that we wouldn’t be worrying about how Americans in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida will vote. Instead the only state which would matter would be us.

When you look at it that way, we should make an application to join as quickly as possible…

…Wait. Oh. It would also mean Bush spending more time in the country, seeking my vote. Hmm, maybe not. Forget I ever said anything…

Back again

So it's done. The final words have been written and a chapter closed. The blog that Andrew Stevens (of Guacamoleville and Race4CityHall) began on the Sao Paulo election has come to an end.

Although the result never looked in doubt (we could have used an American-style, knife-edge scenario as is currently happening between Bush and Kerry), the results were interesting and would be worth following over the next few weeks. There's nothing like elections to shake up the dynamics between and within parties. And it certainly looks like things may well happen in Brazil over the next few weeks and months.

The PT not only lost Sao Paulo, but also it's symoblic centre, Porto Alegre. To lose one would be bad luck; to lose two sounds irresponsible. Before the election campaign prominent petista Emir Sader had written a paper (which I linked to back on 13 August) which indicated that if the PT held Sao Paulo the moderate tendency associated with Lula would prevail within the party; if Sao Paulo was lost it would strengthen the left, which is most closely linked with Porto Alegre. But I don't think Sader envisaged the PT losing both.

On top of the PT's defeat is the effect it will have on its main rivals: the PSDB. They have strengthened their position for 2006, with presumably Geraldo Alckmin, the state governor, as the most likely challenger to Lula for the presidency. There's also the question of what will happen to the PSDB's allies, the PFL; the older generation was already being eclipsed by the younger, more technocratic stars in the party. Antonio Carlos Magalhaes was having informal meetings with Lula in the summer (winter months in Brazil), but his position will be weakened by the failure of his protege, Cesar Borges, to win in Salvador.

While I don't plan to do a regular briefing on the state of Brazilian politics, I do hope that now my duties over at Prefeito Paulistano are over, I will be able to revist them here (and maybe over at Brazzil, if Rodney will let me).

Under construction?

The end looks almost in sight! Another week and then it's back to this blog and an end to the Sao Paulo blogwatch (which is where you should be if you're coming here). Really. There's nothing to see here for the moment - at least not till after the close of polls next Sunday and the short pieces of analysis I will probably have to scribble up as well.

Fading idols

Was at the Carling Academy in Islington on Sunday to see a long time interest of mine: Transglobal Underground.

Frustratingly, they didn’t get on stage until past 11pm and only played an hour set. Managed to miss the tube home, which meant bus journeys through the capital.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, it was a rather disappointing gig. A bit fat and complacent – or at least the performers seemed to be. All on the cusp of middle age, with comfortable, expanded waistlines. Still, Natasha Atlas’s voice was some compensation. It was just a shame that they didn’t play more of their old stuff – Boss Tabla, Lookee Here and Psychic Karaoke would have been great. As it was they started off with Ali Mullah, which is a good track, but then it all went downhill. Still, top marks for Atlas and her rendition of Ma Vie en Rose.

Perhaps it was the lateness of the hour which skewed my feelings about the performance. Still, they’re on again next week. Maybe I’ll give them another chance.

I reckon it also had something to do with the band who came on before. I hadn’t seem Oojami before, but they were great. Whereas TGU were a little threadbare (whoever thought they should be headliners, I don’t know), Ooojami oozed enthusiasm. And the sound was a little more accessible, being jazzier and less focused on percussion as TGU’s was.

Maybe it’s a generation thing. Or the whirling dervish on stage. Or the belly dancers. I can’t decide. But I may try and catch them again next week when they’re at Cargo’s. Closer to home! But I must remember my NUS card this time…

Trying my hand at something different

Well here it is: the first installment in the likely-never-to-be-published travel epic which I wrote at the end of last year. Not sure how many will finally make their way onto Hackwriters (which is what I am). I'm not sure how long the editor Sam North will put up with my pieces before he tires of me, but at least I'm getting a hand in at a genre I've always fanciede.

And let's face it: I want the freebies, so anything to build up the travel lit portfolio!

You'll find me elsewhere...

Given my new status as a student and my journeys through the University’s various libraries, I haven’t been able to post as regularly – either here or at the Sao Paulo election blog I’m running with Andrew Stevens of Guacamoleville. However, now Hartlepool is done and dusted, I’m sure Andrew will be able to concentrate more on the Brazil material and I’ll try and fill in where possible. So for more about that – and more regular posts than here – go and check it out.

Where I've been

Just finished my first week at the new Institute for the Study of the Americas (ISA). It’s a merger of the old US Studies Institute and ILAS, which focuses on Latin American politics. Little surprise to those who have grasped what this blog is about that I should be doing the latter.

It’s mainly been a case of introduction sessions in the classes, organising presentations for the coming term and finding out how to use the library. At the moment it looks like I’m going to be in classes on Comparative Politics, International Politics and a choice between Society and Development or Trans National Corporations. The attraction with the latter is that it’s the first time it’s being run; but unlike the former is more limited in scope.

So no useful insights to present from these preparatory classes at present. However, we have had lectures on Mexico – is regionalism a new focus in the study of its politics? No, actually, it never went away – and a government confidence index being conducted in Argentina. Must confess to being a bit of an anorak and finding the methodology attached to the use of the questionnaire most interesting even if colleagues didn’t.

Other questions to ponder and consider this week (and not emanating from the readings I’ve so far – and far from exhaustively – done): is overt American militarism in the region no longer feasible? Are there alternative models of development, given that all advocates will have to work within the context of market economies? And will Mexican President Fox’s legacy only be his victory three years ago, thereby ending PRI rule?

I haven’t a clue. But one thing’s for sure: it’s been seven years since I did a course on Latin American politics. And most of what I learned then is now out of date.