The War Game #NotoTrident

Quote

In 1965, this film was produced, suggesting what we might experience if there was a nuclear war. Initially it was banned but I watched it in school in 1970.  I was so shaken, and have been opposed to nuclear war, and nuclear energy ever since. There is no sense whatsoever of having nuclear weapons which are horrific, pointless and extraordinarily expensive.  We have had seventy years of senselessness, and it will end when people are made aware of the horrors of these weapons of mass destruction, and that is by real education. There can be no more important issue which we should be educating future generations about.

The war game can be seen on this link 

It is the US debut of the film showing. I could not find a full Youtube link, though there are clips.

war game

A review is seen here on Film Four http://www.film4.com/reviews/1966/the-war-game

An extract of the review is reproduced below,

The BBC and Harold Wilson’s government thought that The War Game was so powerful that it would have a profoundly negative effect on British morale, and conspired to keep it from the small screen – even when it won an Oscar after a triumphant run on the festival circuit. Their perturbation – if not their reaction – quickly makes sense as this chilling 47 minute film plays out. The War Game still ranks as one of the most powerful examples of the docu-drama form (which Watkins had practically invented with his earlier success at the BBC,’Culloden’). He expertly blends statistics, government information, and the graphics and tropes of contemporary BBC news reports with the fictional enactment of the aftermath of a nuclear strike on Kent. The effect of Michael Aspel’s authoritative tones declaring “this could be the way the last two minutes of peace look” over realistic footage of miserable chaos can easily be imagined, especially since the scenario under the Cold War seemed all too likely.

Links

Think Left: Seventy Years of Senselessness, Nuclear Weapons are pointless, horrific, and extraordinarily Expensive

 

The War Game: A Review from Film Four

Corbyn’s excellent unreported Speech

Quote

Yet again, there has been an almost total lack of reporting on Jeremy Corbyn’s response to this most slippery of rightwing governments.   Yet again, only the Morning Star has fulfilled the role of the media.  Yet again, for the rest (and don’t mention Labour List!) the only aspects of interest were:

Jeremy Corbyn refusing to chat to Cameron en route to the House of Lords (they said how silly and rude – what?)

Jeremy Corbyn refusing to take interventions in his ’41 minute speech’ (actually 29 minutes and another Cameron ‘mispeak’)

Jeremy Corbyn being drowned out by non-stop Tory yelling (they said JC should have allowed interventions – why?)

This is not journalism.  It is trivialisation of the highest order given the seriousness of this government’s policies and intents.  Democracy requires accountability.  We get none from this Conservative Government and our mainstream media colludes in ignoring its own responsibility to report the words and policies of Jeremy Corbyn’s opposition LP.

 

Fortunately, RT has filled a gap by allowing us to hear Corbyn’s speech in its entirety (and to feel the disgust at the behaviour of the Tory MPs – how would anyone know that its the speaker’s role intervene).

The Morning Star’s report can be read here:

‘… Mr Corbyn said the government’s vague promises will do nothing to “create a more equal society, an economy that works for everyone and a society in which there is opportunity for all.

“Still this government does not seem to understand that cuts have their consequences,” he blasted.

“This austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity, and it’s a wrong choice for our country made by a government with the wrong priorities — and it’s women that have been hit hardest by these cuts.”

 

Len McCluskey: Labour Right must stop scheming and start fighting the Tories

Quote

Len’s speech lasts 25 minutes then a Q&A

Len McCluskey | Jeremy Corbyn: Blast From The Past Or Leader Of Tomorrow? | Oxford Union

Published on Feb 25, 2016

SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► http://is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion

In his address to the Oxford Union tonight (20:00 hours, Tuesday 9 February), McCluskey will say that last summer’s Labour leadership election saw an exhausted New Labour collide with rising public discontent about the inability of business-as-usual politics to tackle growing inequality.  Against this backdrop, an electrifying campaign based on the promise of real political change propelled Jeremy Corbyn to Labour leader.

McCluskey, the first modern day trade union leader to address the Oxford Union, speaking on the subject Jeremy Corbyn: Blast from the past or leader of tomorrow? will say:

“Some have sought to excuse their disloyalty to Corbyn by pointing to his own rebellious past on the backbenches. But who can seriously argue that his votes in parliament against the Iraq war, identity cards or university tuition fees now diminish his ability to lead the Labour party today? On all these issues he was not only right, I believe, he was giving voice to the views of most Labour supporters.

“I’m not saying that any Labour MP should have to abandon his or her own views, or cease to articulate them within the party’s democratic structures. But I am saying that this continual war of attrition is achieving nothing beyond taking the pressure off the government.

“So my clear message to the plotters is – stop the sniping, stop the scheming, get behind Jeremy Corbyn and start taking the fight to the Tories.”

The leader of the 1.4 million-strong union will remind those undermining Jeremy Corbyn that they have failed to grasp why their brand of politics was roundly rejected by the Labour electorate – and dismiss the term ‘moderate’ as  wholly inappropriate for MPs advancing further foreign wars or versions of austerity:

“These MPs, who refuse to accept the overwhelming mandate Jeremy Corbyn got from Labour’s membership, are generously described as the “moderates” in the party.  It’s an abuse of language – there is nothing “moderate” about voting to bomb Syria or agreeing more public spending cuts, anything more than it’s “extreme” to vote for peace or for an end to eye-watering austerity.

“Such labelling simply obstructs the debate we need to have which is what went wrong with New Labour, what lessons can we learn, and how can we craft an appealing electoral pitch for the reality of 2020, not 1997?

“Their analysis of Labour’s defeat in 2015 was unconvincing, their proposals stale, minimalist and uninspiring – and for the most part they have still not shaped up after Corbyn’s victory. Until they can do that, they are a plot without a programme; a cabal without a critique.

“Labour cannot simply go back to where  it left off in 1997, 2007 or 2010.  Jeremy Corbyn’s message, his authenticity, his radical challenge to the status quo is part of an international movement against business-as-usual politics.”

McCluskey will further say that that the efforts of some in the parliamentary Labour party (PLP) to present the May elections as a referendum on the leader should be thoroughly dismissed:

“This is a sensitive issue and I am not a supporter of going  back to mandatory re-selection or other changes designed to intimidate or undermine Labour MPs. But I also believe that we need to issue a clear warning to those who are advocating the PLP being used as a lever to force Jeremy Corbyn out.

“The bizarre plans outlined by Joe Haines and pollster Peter Kellner, the call to arms by Damian McBride in his Times article and the ludicrous 99 days’ notice given by Michael Dugher to the arch-Tory Mail on Sunday – all have to be dismissed with distain by any real Labour supporter.

“If the Labour MPs want something constructive to do, then start working out policies and ideas that might help attract voters back to Labour. The leadership election revealed just how much the New Labour faction had run out of political impetus.  They offered no answers to the big questions of inequality, economic management, and 21st century social justice. There were certainly no big ideas from what were dubbed the “mainstream candidates” during the last leadership election.”

Turning to the need for an alternative to austerity, McCluskey will advance that Corbyn represents the best chance the UK has to reverse Conservative policies that have rendered this the most unequal of the major western nations:

“The global political and economic problems are so stark that they can no longer be ignored. Politicians who are willing to talk frankly about them will be listened to.  Under Jeremy now, we have a clear message: one that rejects austerity economics and promises investment and growth instead.

“Fairness, tackling corporate greed, tax avoidance and tax evasion, and holding power and wealth to account – all popular proposals which are resonating on both sides of the Atlantic.

“What Jeremy Corbyn offers – like Bernie Sanders in the US – is a calling out of corporate corruption, a rejection of the austerity that has made the UK the most unequal economy in the G8 and the promise that politics and politicians can and will put things right for ordinary working people.”

– See more at: http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/len-mccluskey-to-labour-plotters-stop-the-scheming-back-corbyn-and-take-the-fight-to-the-tories/#sthash.xTOVqWw1.dpuf

Cameron’s Sartorial ‘Dead Cat Manoeuvre’

Quote

John Crace, sketch writer for the Guardian, reckons that David Cameron let the mask slip at PMQs …..

‘Then came the playground game-changer. In reply to a heckle from Labour’s Angela Eagle about his own mother’s opposition to his welfare cuts, Dave let rip: “I know what my mother would say. I think she’d look across the dispatch box and she’d say: ‘Put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing the national anthem’.”

But was it a slip – the Dave he tries to keep under wraps?

I think most people would agree that David Cameron’s sudden outburst was completely unexpected, and did not bear any conceivable relation to Jeremy Corbyn’s questions about the NHS… but then it is hardly the first time over the last 6 years that he has had a bizarre tirade about union-control, threatened national security etc..

As such, it fully corresponds with the Lynton Crosby (the Tory election guru) signature ‘dead cat’ manoeuvre. .. the essence of which Crosby explains:

‘The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout, ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’ In other words, they will be talking about the dead cat – the thing you want them to talk about – and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.’

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/20/lynton-crosby-and-dead-cat-won-election-conservatives-labour-intellectually-lazy

But it isn’t simply a distraction technique. It is also a technique used in hypnosis. Out of awareness, our brains are constantly predicting what actions, memories, emotions and so on, that we may need to mobilise in the immediate future. This creates a ‘cone of expectation’ which is constantly being updated. A totally unexpected, and preferably an emotionally shocking event (like Derren Brown suddenly jerking your arm up in the air and bending you double) disrupts our brain’s ‘cone of expectation’ and we are left in a state of confusion with our brain desperately trying to recalibrate. In that moment, we are highly suggestible… with our neurotransmitters acting to clear our conscious memory so that we only focus on what may be ‘danger’.

This is all part of the normal fight, flight and freeze response. What it is not, is part of the normal democratic process … let alone PMQs when the Prime Minister is supposed to be answerable to the House of Commons.

The best known example of the ‘dead cat manoeuvre’ was in the 2015 GE campaign, when defence secretary Michael Fallon launched an unexpected, brutal attack on Labour leader Ed Miliband.

“Miliband stabbed his own brother in the back to become Labour leader. Now he is willing to stab the United Kingdom in the back to become prime minister.”

At this point, some polls had Labour narrowly ahead of the Tories, with Miliband’s pledge to crack down on nondomicile tax avoidance, dominating the headlines. By suggesting that Miliband would scrap the Trident nuclear deterrent, in order to strike an electoral deal with the Scottish National party, Fallon managed to switch media attention away from Labour’s popular policy.  And in so doing, he leveraged the defining theme of the 2015 Conservative campaign which was to target Miliband’s perceived weakness as a leader.

So Labour’s tax policy was pushed out of awareness (admittedly with the collusion of the press). And the question was left hanging in the air as to what Fallon ‘knew’ that had prompted his outburst, and the strong implication that Ed M was so desperate to win that he was prepared to roll over and give the SNP whatever they demanded.

I know that this worked psychologically because I wondered myself what was going on… no smoke without a fire etc. Of course, it is now acknowledged that this was a deliberate attempt to manipulate the electorate.

Ordinary btl commentators wrote in response when this underhand strategy was explained by Lynton Crosby himself:

“What is shocking in all of this is how completely unselfconscious the Tories are about feeling no obligation even nod towards reality in their campaigning, let alone propose real solutions.

The sole criterion is “Can we get people to believe this?”

 Crosby explained in detail the contempt with which he manipulated the public. It isn’t just lies, it is psychological techniques, deliberately playing on fears discovered using market research techniques. It works the same way it works to persuade us all to buy new shit all the time and not to make a fuss about a few mega rich Masters of the Universe ruling the world while we toil away making them even richer. Yes they won. That doesn’t make it right.”

 

Now, to get back to Cameron’s outburst, Paul Waugh writes in the Huffington Post:

‘The curious thing about PMQs was that Cameron and Jeremy Hunt are actually on very shaky ground on the weekend deaths effect (as academics and doctors keep pointing out). And in the FT today, there is an ominous quote from Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ. Godlee, who has been critical of the way the deaths data has been used by politicians, says a new article in the BMJ, expected to appear next week, “will aim to address concerns about political interference in the peer review process and the source of Hunt’s data”.’ http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/25/the-waugh-zone-february-2_3_n_9313714.html?utm_hp_ref=the-waugh-zone

Curious? Curious?? Not only was Cameron well aware of the shaky ground over the NHS but he also knew that he was vulnerable over his mother (and aunt’s) criticism of cuts to local government. I find it extremely difficult to believe that his tirade was not fully thought out and prepared in advance.

In fact, the only thing that I find at all remarkable is that Cameron is prepared to open himself up to all that criticism, alienating ordinary Conservative supporters by his bullyboy tactics and humiliating media coverage, just to knock the privatization of the NHS off the front page…. His devotion to furthering the interests of the corporations is almost courageous (although more likely self-interested).

But on a more sinister note, to return to the hypnotic invite to our suggestible brains… Cameron’s outburst was a dog whistle of contempt for Jeremy Corbyn, and for us to completely forget the importance of Corbyn’s line of questioning.

As the commentator above puts it ‘It isn’t just lies, it is psychological techniques, deliberately playing on fears discovered using market research techniques.’

All this raises questions about transparency and democratic legitimacy. We do not expect politicians to be trying to manipulate our unconscious, using behavioural, marketing techniques.

In discussing the politics of ‘Nudge’ (Cameron’s Behavioural Insights Team were known as the Nudge Unit’) Will Leggett writes:

We expect governments to clearly state their policies, and persuade us of their merits. …. advocates of the Big Society never tire of pointing out the pitfalls of ‘nanny statism’. So it is curious that they are simultaneously endorsing a policy approach which makes even our unconscious decisions an object of government intervention.

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/debate/bigsociety-leggett.aspx

The good news is that the more these psychological manipulations become the subject of open debate, the less effective they are likely to be. Our ‘thinking’ will kick in and we might actually remember the parlous state of the NHS instead of Cameron’s shameful, sartorial schema.

 

Related post:

Propaganda techniques – Glittering Generalities