<!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>I am a member of the CPGB. I was in the SWP
(1983-1987).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But, I think you will find we were discussing the
SWP. I'm happy to have a seperate discussion on the CPGB if you
wish.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I had hoped you would respond to the points raised
regardless of which organisation I belonged to.</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>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Thanks for that Lee. Now tell me which left organisation you identify with.
Please. </DIV>
<DIV>Ian<BR><BR></DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
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=lee.rock@blueyonder.co.uk href="mailto:lee.rock@blueyonder.co.uk">Lee
Rock</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=ian.wallace15@btopenworld.com
href="mailto:ian.wallace15@btopenworld.com">IAN WALLACE</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 6:59
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><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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>http://www.sheffield.dissent.org.uk/<BR>http://wiki.sheffieldsocialforum.org.uk/G8<BR>g8-sheffield
mailing
list<BR>g8-sheffield@lists.aktivix.org<BR>http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/g8-sheffield<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>