<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ian</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thanks for that.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In response to the three points:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1. I made no reference to the SWP
doing their own thing 'via the Working Class'. I am all for the w/class
struggle. Until recently I was the Regional Organiser of my union for ten
years. Last month I was at my union conference. I see trade union
struggle as the main area that change will come about. Though, at the
moment they are much weaker than for some time.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My point is, I do not see the SWP attempts to
exlude other groups of activists from the SWP led campaigns as furthering
the aim of w/class struggle. I regard the SWP apporach to others on the
left as sectarian. Which other groups on the far left are the SWP
presently working with?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>How did having StWC and Dissent having seperate
events two nights running in the same city (with less than 1000 people in total
involved) further the class struggle?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2. I was at the Galloway
meeting. I have spoken on the same platform as Galloway and am on
first name terms with him, some of his assistants (who I worked closely
with in regards to the ESF at Ally Pally) and Oliur Rahman.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Happy to ask you: What are the differences in
the SWP about RESPECT not supporting a position of Open Borders for
example? Having been at the Founding Conference (where I was one of the
few speakers from the floor) and the subsequent Annual Conference of RESPECT,
what are the internal SWP debates about the fact that whilst having a majority
of the delegates, positions of the SWP such as the one above and MPs on a
workers wage, were not adopted?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>3. Why are platforms/factions
only allowed in the three months up to conference? What about the
difference of opinions over the other nine months? Why are members not
allowed to mandate their delegates as to which way to vote at your
conference? Why is your elected leadership, elected via a slate system
that is itself proposed by the leadership? When is the last time the SWP
leadership was defeated on any issue at your conference? When was the last
time that a member of the SWP was elected onto the leadership against the wishes
of the existing leadership? Why can only the 10% of your members who are
delegates vote for or against the leadership slate - what about the other 90% of
your members?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>All the best</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Lee</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=ian.wallace15@btopenworld.com
href="mailto:ian.wallace15@btopenworld.com">IAN WALLACE</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=lee.rock@blueyonder.co.uk
href="mailto:lee.rock@blueyonder.co.uk">Lee Rock</A> ; <A
title=dan@aktivix.org href="mailto:dan@aktivix.org">Dan</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=g8-sheffield@lists.aktivix.org
href="mailto:g8-sheffield@lists.aktivix.org">g8-sheffield@lists.aktivix.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 29, 2005 6:22
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [g8-sheffield] Re:
g8-sheffield Digest, Vol 4, Issue 64</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>1. "In Sheffield, for <BR>example, they insisted on doing their own thing
via StWC with regards to the <BR>G8 visit." </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>2. "If you have been trying to follow then you will have found it
very difficult. <BR>You read of no debate in their publications, but instead
have to try and <BR>read between the lines of what the leadership is
saying."<BR></DIV>
<DIV>3. "There is no real internal democracy for ordinary members of the
SWP.<BR>Decisions are made by a self-electing leadership."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1. 'Come the revolution' you will no doubt be saying that we insisted on
'doing our own thing via the Working Class'. Hope so. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2. If you want to know, "what is going on in the SWP at the
moment, <BR>with regards to RESPECT and StWC" why don't you just ask? Then
come along to a meeting.</DIV>
<DIV>Did you come to the George Galloway et al meeting? 700 others did. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>3. Maybe you have been speaking to some disaffected former members? I
might not be the best non-disaffected non-former member to relate to because I
have only been a member since 1977 so I might lack your experience, but my (no
doubt highly biased) view is that we are working to a direction agreed through
our structures in the run up to, and at, our national annual conference. Where
we also elect our leadership. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ian</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Eh?<BR><BR><BR><B><I>Lee Rock <lee.rock@blueyonder.co.uk></I></B>
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Dan<BR><BR><BR>The
SWP does not operate 'democratic centralism'.<BR><BR>All of this is a real
problem for the rest of us on the left - as the SWP <BR>are by far the
largest and most influential group. (Many of their members would not even
have been aware of the <BR>Dissent campaign.) How much better it would have
been if there had been a <BR>single united campaign around this one issue,
don't you think?<BR><BR>All the best<BR><BR>Lee<BR>----- Original Message
----- <BR>From: "Dan" <DAN@AKTIVIX.ORG><BR>To: "IAN WALLACE"
<IAN.WALLACE15@BTOPENWORLD.COM><BR>Cc:
<G8-SHEFFIELD@LISTS.AKTIVIX.ORG><BR>Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 3:05
PM<BR>Subject: Re: [g8-sheffield] Re: g8-sheffield Digest, Vol 4, Issue
64<BR><BR><BR>Hi,<BR><BR>Yeah, it's good stuff. I also got send this today,
from the SWP
website:<BR><BR>http://www.swp.org.uk/article_swp.php?article_id=305<BR>"Democracy
without centralism will fail"<BR><BR>It's an interesting article. The
writer, for example, cites something<BR>that both Naomi Klein and Starhawk
have previously picked up on:<BR><BR>> At one anti-capitalist
demonstration not long ago, in Washington DC, <BR>> demonstrators agreed
to blockade all the entrances to a World Bank <BR>> conference. But in
one area a group decided to follow their own decision, <BR>> ignoring
everyone else, and let the bank delegates through-dissolving the <BR>>
whole protest into pointlessness.<BR><BR>There are certainly discussions to
be had about what kind of structure<BR>works where. The drive toward
decentralisation is something that both<BR>certain left-wingers and most
economists share. We need more argument<BR>about is when it's really
appropriate, and when it doesn't work. The SWP<BR>writer simply says that
the task of working towards revolution demands a<BR>level of organisation
that autonomistas cannot provide. I have always<BR>believed that we must
walk the talk - that our actions today must mirror<BR>the future we want.
That would mean, for example, not having a civil war<BR>in order to give
power to the proletariat, because I believe in peace -<BR>and because too
many revolutionaries have a category for 'reactionary<BR>elements of the
working class' who can also be shot. (This may be naive<BR>of me, but I
refuse to drop it just yet!)<BR><BR>There's also a nice bit in Mark Steel's
'reasons to be cheerful' that is<BR>a rather amusing critique of 'the
tyranny of self-organisation', about<BR>an anti-fascist rally he was
on.<BR><BR>"... every single person amongst the thousands who attend, as
they<BR>arrive asks the nearest person ‘what’s happening?’ But no one ever
knew<BR>the answer. Eventually, a group of fifty or more would walk in the
same<BR>direction and everyone followed. They might have all been going for
a<BR>burger, but as everyone joined them it would go around that the
fascists<BR>were definitely this way. So even if they were going for a
burger they<BR>would now believe that the fascists are this way anyway and
abandon the<BR>burger.” [Mark Steel, Reasons to be Cheerful, London, Simon
& Schuster,<BR>2001, p.39]<BR><BR>I'm personally still much more in
favour of self-organisation, because<BR>centralisation, historically, always
leads to abuses of power. But then,<BR>saying "there's no power here"
doesn't make it so either!<BR><BR>A couple of other resources: the Joseph
Rowntree foundation have been<BR>funding a 'power inquiry' (see
http://www.powerinquiry.org/) and they've<BR>produced a book called "Beyond
the Ballot - 57 democratic innovations<BR>from around the world." (PDF
from<BR>http://www.powerinquiry.org/publications/documents/BeyondtheBallot_000.pdf)<BR><BR>Maybe
we could do something at Matilda, from a much more leftie angle?<BR>It could
be an inquiry from the left - with democratic centralists and<BR>autonomists
making up two of the positions, for example. (It was<BR>heartening to read
in the SWP article that debate is so important: and I<BR>noted that I fit in
to the 'fevered dreams about the SWP being<BR>armies...! I only hope it's
not merely spin...)<BR><BR>And if you have time, take a look at
http://www.extremedemocracy.com/ -<BR>lots of chapters on devolving
democracy until it looks a little like a<BR>free market...<BR><BR>Maybe we
shouldn't close this list. Perhaps it could be used for
debate...?<BR><BR>Dan<BR>----<BR><BR><BR>IAN WALLACE wrote:<BR><BR>> I
think Vol 4, Issue 64 might go down in history itself. Two very good,
<BR>> thoughtful, measured, and generally excellent contributions
focusing on <BR>> some of the real issues from Mozaz and Fabien.<BR>>
Maybe the G8 Sheffield Digest could always be like this?<BR>>
Ian<BR>><BR>> */g8-sheffield-request@lists.aktivix.org/*
wrote:<BR>><BR>> Send g8-sheffield mailing list submissions to<BR>>
g8-sheffield@lists.aktivix.org<BR>><BR>> To subscribe or unsubscribe
via the World Wide Web, visit<BR>>
http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/g8-sheffield<BR>> or, via
email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<BR>>
g8-sheffield-request@lists.aktivix.org<BR>><BR>> You can reach the
person managing the list at<BR>>
g8-sheffield-owner@lists.aktivix.org<BR>><BR>> When replying, please
edit your Subject line so it is more specific<BR>> than "Re: Contents of
g8-sheffield digest..."<BR>><BR>><BR>> Today's
Topics:<BR>><BR>> 1. Inside the Murky World of Make Poverty History
(zerosevenfour two)<BR>> 2. Fwd: [resistg82005] Great article in the
guardian today (fabian)<BR>><BR>><BR>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>><BR>>
Message: 1<BR>> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:49:44 +0000<BR>> From:
"zerosevenfour two"<BR>> Subject: [g8-sheffield] Inside the Murky World
of Make Poverty History<BR>> To: g8-sheffield@lists.aktivix.org<BR>>
Message-ID:<BR>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed<BR>><BR>>
a must read<BR>><BR>>
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/315058.html<BR>><BR>> Make Poverty
History would seem an unprecedented success story.<BR>> Uniting<BR>>
trade unions, charities, NGOs and a stellar-cast of celebrities,<BR>> its
cause<BR>> is dominating media coverage while the campaign's white
wristband<BR>> is being<BR>> worn the world over. So why, as the G8
summit approaches, are leading<BR>> members briefing against each other
to the press and African social<BR>> movements saying ‘nothing about us,
without us'? Stuart Hodkinson<BR>> investigates.<BR>><BR>> For a
sun-soaked Friday in late May, there was an unusual air of<BR>> panic
at<BR>> the British Trade Union Congress (TUC) for the monthly
members'<BR>> assembly of<BR>> Make Poverty History (MPH). Officials
hurriedly briefed reception<BR>> with some<BR>> last-minute security
instructions: “You must make sure that only<BR>> assembly<BR>> members
are let in,” one instructed. “The meeting is open to the<BR>> public,
but<BR>> only public members of Make Poverty History.”<BR>><BR>>
The nerves were understandable. Two damning stories about MPH were<BR>>
about to<BR>> break in the British national press. The cover story of
British<BR>> centre-left<BR>> weekly, New Statesman, ‘Why Oxfam is
failing Africa', had exposed<BR>> deep anger<BR>> among members of the
MPH coalition at Oxfam's ‘revolving door'<BR>> relationship<BR>> with
UK government officials and policies, accusing it of allowing<BR>>
Britain's<BR>> two most powerful politicians, Prime Minister Tony Blair
and<BR>> Chancellor<BR>> Gordon Brown, to co-opt MPH as a front for
New Labour's own<BR>> questionable<BR>> anti-poverty
drive.<BR>><BR>> The right-wing Sunday Telegraph, meanwhile, had given
notice of<BR>> its shocking<BR>> exclusive on how large numbers of the
ubiquitous MPH white<BR>> wristband – the<BR>> very symbol of the
campaign – had been knowingly sourced from Chinese<BR>> sweatshops with
Oxfam's blessing.<BR>><BR>> Inside MPH, however, the embarrassing
revelations were no<BR>> surprise. For the<BR>> past six months, some
of the UK 's leading development and<BR>> environmental<BR>> NGOs have
been increasingly vocal in their unease about a campaign<BR>> high
on<BR>> celebrity octane but low on radical politics. One insider,
active<BR>> in a key<BR>> MPH working group, argues there “has often
been a complete divergence<BR>> between the democratically agreed message
of our public campaign<BR>> and the<BR>> actual spin that greets the
outside world”. He is angry:<BR>><BR>> “Our real demands on trade, aid
and debt, and criticisms of UK<BR>> government<BR>> policy in
developing countries have been consistently swallowed up<BR>> by
white<BR>> bands, celebrity luvvies and praise upon praise for Blair
and<BR>> Brown being<BR>> ahead of other world leaders on these
issues.”<BR>><BR>> THE RISE AND RISE OF MPH<BR>><BR>> This is
surely not what campaigners had in mind back in late 2003<BR>> when
Oxfam<BR>> initiated a series of informal meetings with charities
and<BR>> campaigning<BR>> organisations to consider forming an
unprecedented coalition<BR>> against poverty<BR>> in 2005 to coincide
with the UK presidency of both the G8 summit<BR>> and EU, the<BR>>
first five year evaluation of progress on the UN Millennium<BR>>
Development<BR>> Goals (MDGs) agreed in 2000, the 6th WTO Ministerial
Meeting in<BR>> Hong Kong,<BR>> and the 20th anniversary of Live
Aid.<BR>><BR>> In September 2004, the Make Poverty History coalition
was officially<BR>> launched as the UK mobilisation of an international
coalition, the<BR>> Global<BR>> Call to Action Against Poverty
(G-CAP), led by Oxfam<BR>> International, Action<BR>> Aid and DATA –
the controversial Africa charity set up by U2<BR>> frontman, Bono<BR>>
and multi-billionnaires, George Soros, and Microsoft's Bill Gates,<BR>>
the<BR>> world's second richest person with a fortune of just under
$50<BR>> billion.<BR>><BR>> Since then, MPH has become an
impressive campaigning coalition,<BR>> boasting<BR>> over 460 member
organisations including all the major trade unions<BR>> and the<BR>>
TUC, development NGOs, charities, churches as well as several<BR>> faith
and<BR>> diaspora groups. Its successful mix of celebrity backers
and<BR>> anti-poverty<BR>> message has captured the attention of both
politicians and mass<BR>> media,<BR>> encapsulated in the
near-hysteria following the annoucement by<BR>> veteran rock<BR>> star
and Africa campaigner, Bob Geldof, that a series of free<BR>> concerts
in<BR>> London, Paris, Philadelphia, Rome, and Berlin would take
place<BR>> under the<BR>> banner ‘Live 8' to coincide with the MPH
campaign to lobby the G8<BR>> summit in<BR>> Gleneagles, Scotland in
July.<BR>><BR>> But despite the success, there is widespread
unhappiness within the<BR>> coalition over the campaign's public face and
its cosiness to<BR>> Blair and<BR>> Brown. Critics argue that on paper
at least, MPH's policy demands<BR>> on the UK<BR>> government are
fairly radical, especially its calls for “trade<BR>> justice not<BR>>
free trade”, which would require G8 and EU countries, notably the<BR>>
UK, to<BR>> stop forcing through free market policies on poor countries
as<BR>> part of aid,<BR>> trade deals or debt relief. MPH also says
rich countries should<BR>> immediately<BR>> double aid by $50bn per
year and finally meet 35-year old promises<BR>> to spend<BR>> 0.7 per
cent of their national income in development aid. More and<BR>>
better<BR>> aid, meanwhile, should be matched by cancellation of
the<BR>> “unpayabale” debts<BR>> of the world's poorest countries
through a “fair and transparent<BR>> international process” that uses new
money, not slashed aid<BR>> budgets. With<BR>> additional calls for
the regulation of multinationals and the<BR>> democratisation of the IMF
and World Bank, John Hilary, Campaigns<BR>> Director<BR>> of UK
development NGO, War on Want, has a point when he asserts<BR>> that
MPH's<BR>> policies “strike at the very heart of the neo-liberal
agenda.”<BR>><BR>> The problem, however, is that when these policies
are relayed to a<BR>> public<BR>> audience, they become virtually
indistinguishable from those of<BR>> the UK<BR>> government. This was
brought home back in March this year when<BR>> Blair's<BR>> deeply
compromised Commission for Africa set out its neo-liberal<BR>>
proposals<BR>> for the corporate plunder of Africa's human and natural
resources<BR>> under the<BR>> identical headlines used by MPH – ‘trade
justice', ‘drop the debt'<BR>> and ‘more<BR>> and better aid'. In
return, most MPH members, led by Oxfam and the<BR>> TUC,<BR>> warmly
welcomed the report's recommendations. As Ghana 's Yao<BR>> Graham
makes<BR>> clear in July's Red Pepper, African civil society is far
less<BR>> enamoured with<BR>> the Commission's report, which he argues
lays out a blueprint for<BR>> “the new<BR>> scramble for Africa
”.<BR>><BR>> REVOLVING DOORS<BR>><BR>> Thanks to the New
Statesman exposé, much of the blame is placed on<BR>> the<BR>>
leadership of Oxfam – the UK 's biggest and most powerful
development<BR>> agency. Despite its pro-poor image around the world,
over the last<BR>> two<BR>> decades, Oxfam has become a feeder school
for government special<BR>> advisers<BR>> and World Bank officials and
has a particularly close relationship<BR>> with New<BR>> Labour.
Blair's special advisor on international development, Justin<BR>>
Forsyth, was previously Oxfam's campaigns manager. Forsyth's<BR>>
opposite number<BR>> at the Treasury is Oxfam board member, Shriti
Vadera, a former<BR>> director at<BR>> the US bank, UBS Warburg, and
specialist in public-private<BR>> partnerships, a<BR>> policy that
litters the Africa Commission's report. Less well<BR>> known is
John<BR>> Clark, who left Oxfam for the World Bank in 1992 to join the
World<BR>> Bank<BR>> where he was responsible for the Bank's
co-optation strategy with<BR>> civil<BR>> society before advising Tony
Blair in 2000 on his “Africa Partnership<BR>> Initiative” that directly
led to the New Partnership for Africa 's<BR>> Development (NEPAD) in
2001. At the heart of MPH is Oxfam's Sarah<BR>> Kline, a<BR>> former
World Bank official who champions the organisation's<BR>>
‘constructive<BR>> dialogue' approach with the IMF and World
Bank.<BR>><BR>> Oxfam's political independence from neo-liberal
governance is also<BR>> compromised by the £40m or so of its annual
income that comes from<BR>> government or other public funds. Nearly £14m
alone originates<BR>> from the<BR>> Department for International
Development (DfID), which is a major<BR>> champion<BR>> of
privatisation and its benefits for UK companies in developing<BR>>
countries.<BR>> In this, Oxfam is of course by no means alone – almost
every<BR>> development NGO<BR>> in Britain is on DfID's payroll. While
it is possible to take and use<BR>> government money progressively while
being critical of the donor's<BR>> policies,<BR>> such large amounts
of government funding inevitably influence how<BR>> far Oxfam<BR>>
will stick its neck out politically and risk future funding
cuts.<BR>><BR>> Oxfam's unrivalled financial resources and existing
public profile<BR>> make it<BR>> by far the most powerful organisation
in the MPH coalition. Last<BR>> year,<BR>> Oxfam's annual income
surpassed £180m – three times the amount<BR>> received by<BR>> its
nearest rival, Christian Aid, and dwarfing more social<BR>>
movement-oriented<BR>> development NGOs like WDM and War on Want who
punch way above<BR>> their weight<BR>> on just over £1m each. Such
wealth disparity inevitably translates<BR>> into the<BR>> direction
taken by the coalition, especially its public image.<BR>> Oxfam's
army<BR>> of press officers, researchers and campaign officers can
naturally<BR>> take<BR>> advantage of the huge media opportunities
generated by the campaign.<BR>><BR>> But making Oxfam the scapegoat
for MPH's co-optation by New Labour<BR>> misses<BR>> the key role
played by Comic Relief and its celebrity co-founder,<BR>> the
film<BR>> director, Richard Curtis. As one of Britain's most prolific
and<BR>> brilliant<BR>> comedy writers, Curtis shot to fame in the
1980s with the TV series<BR>> Blackadder, and his since penned hits like
Mr Bean, The Vicar of<BR>> Dibley, and<BR>> the blockbuster movie,
Four Weddings and a Funeral. With wealth<BR>> and fame has<BR>> come
enormous political clout. In 2001, British centre-left daily<BR>>
broadsheet, The Guardian, ranked him the 10th most powerful person<BR>>
in the UK<BR>> media industry, ahead of every national newspaper editor,
except<BR>> Paul Dacre<BR>> of the Daily Mail.<BR>><BR>>
Curtis's personal commitment to raising money for Africa goes back<BR>>
to 1985<BR>> when, at the height of the Ethiopian famine, he visited
refugee<BR>> camps as a<BR>> guest of Oxfam. It was a life-changing
experience and on his<BR>> return to<BR>> London persuaded showbiz
friends to set up Comic Relief, the<BR>> celebrity-led<BR>> charity
that uses the medium of comedy to raise both awareness about<BR>>
poverty, famine and disease in Africa , and huge sums of money to<BR>>
such<BR>> causes.<BR>><BR>> Despite its incredible success in
bringing in the bacon – over<BR>> £337m since<BR>> its inception –
Comic Relief's live televised shows every two<BR>> years are also<BR>>
criticised for their distinct lack of politics and inaccurate<BR>>
portrayal of<BR>> Africa as a continent-come-country ravaged by natural
disasters<BR>> and warring<BR>> tribes – the roles of colonialism, IMF
and World Bank structural<BR>> adjustment<BR>> programmes and Western
corporations don't get a look in.<BR>><BR>> THE MPH MEDIA
MACHINE<BR>><BR>> Comic Relief's apolitical approach to Africa is
deeply important<BR>> to the<BR>> fractious debate inside MPH. For
while Bono and Geldof get the<BR>> limelight and<BR>> Oxfam dominates
the policy agenda, it is Richard Curtis who is in the<BR>> driving seat
of MPH's all-important publicity machine.<BR>><BR>> Curtis's power
partly lies in the financial and human resources he<BR>> brings
to<BR>> the campaign. He has personally ensured the bankrolling of
MPH,<BR>> convincing<BR>> Scottish multi-millionaire business tycoon,
Sir Tom Hunter, to<BR>> donate a £1m<BR>> to the campaign, and
advertising executives to donate more than<BR>> £4m of free<BR>>
airtime. This helped propel his ‘Click' advert worldwide in which<BR>>
global<BR>> film and music mega-stars, like George Clooney, Bono and
Kylie<BR>> Minogue,<BR>> kitted out in full white T-shirt and
wristband regalia, click<BR>> their fingers<BR>> every three seconds
to mark another child dying in Africa . Curtis<BR>> has used<BR>> his
unrivalled celebrity address book to ensure that MPH's<BR>> platforms,
events<BR>> and entire PR strategy are dripping with
celebrities.<BR>><BR>> While most MPH members gratefully accept that
Curtis's celebrity<BR>> support has<BR>> been integral to the
campaign's phenomenal marketing success<BR>> (sales of the<BR>> MPH
white wristband are nearly 4 million and the website gets<BR>> thousands
of<BR>> hits a minute), some believe it has come with too heavy a
price.<BR>> First<BR>> there's the dubious role of Sir Tom Hunter, no
ordinary sharp-dressed<BR>> philanthropist. Worth £678m, his Hunter
Foundation charity is an<BR>> evangelical<BR>> force behind
public-private partnerships and child entrepreneurism in<BR>> Scotland .
Since 2001, it has helped fund the Scottish Executive's<BR>>
Schools<BR>> Enterprise Programme in which the private sector helps
groom<BR>> children as<BR>> young as five in the wonders of
business.<BR>><BR>> Ewan Hunter, CEO of The Hunter Foundation, rejects
this<BR>> characterisation of<BR>> the scheme as “completely
erroneous”, and claims it is “a world<BR>> leading<BR>> initiative” to
support a “can do” attitude in children: “For the<BR>> record we<BR>>
consult widely with the relevant trade unions, councils,
governments,<BR>> teachers and children before agreeing any investment
in<BR>> education.” Note he<BR>> doesn't actually refute the
business-child relationship.<BR><BR>=== message truncated
===</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>