Those racist fucks at Operation Black Vote are at it again.........

[butchersapron]

I have to say well done to whoever thought up the name OBV though - after all, who but a racist would criticise black people voting or question the motivations of the initiative?

 

[Random]

who but a racist would criticise black people voting

...or an anarchist

 

[catch]

Here's the bio of one of the candidates from that article:

Rokhsana Fiaz, 34, was also born and raised in West Ham, and is confident of winning. Fiaz brings a range of experience as a ministerial advisor, former producer at LWT's political show the Dimbleby Programme, and a former consultant in the private sector.

You have to wonder about the class composition of the candidates who don't get plugged.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

There might be, there might not be - but one things sure, canalising different sections of the community into different and potentially competing groups isn't the way to ensure that they do occur in the future. That route is far more likely to prove counter-productive - in the long and short run. You're absolutely right on feelings of disempowerment feeding disengagement - which is precisley the gap that i see the black professionals and the politicians are doing their best to use to their own ends in OBV.

But have a look at the basis the IWCA are operating on - it's far closer to the one that i'm suggesting is the way forward - i've seen IWCA posters on here criticise OBV in very strong terms for racialising what are social problems (oddly enough that's precisely what the BNP do as well - though i'd like to make clear that i'm not directly comparing the two in anything other than the uselessness of such divisive tactics in developing a strong w/c wide resistance).

I'm 100% with you on "you can only begin to try to make things fair if you become involved" - but again, the question must be asked - on what basis? We have to be prepared to criticise things like OBV for not doing what i think we both agree is essential.

Which is why i've been trying to establish something more concrete - i've suggested where and who i think this is coming from and why.

First, I have no problems with anyone at all criticising OBV or any other initiative - where i think we have a disagreement is whether targetting specific sectors of the population is ultimately divisive and pointless, or worse, actually strengthening inequalities and political power.

God forbid we go back to the days when "positive discrimination" was thought to be a good idea - but we should also consider that notion that there are very definite divisions within our society that do affect some groups more than others e.g. unequal pay across gender, unemployment rates much higher in BME communities, employment discrimination against disabled people etc.

I've read some of your other thoughts on similar issues on other threads and I feel that I understand where you are coming from on a theoretical level i.e. we need to challenge the political orthodoxies in force to effect real change, rather than trying to tinker around the edges (correct me if i'm wrong). But in a practical and pragmatic sense, I do strongly believe that projects such as OBV are a good thing in that they aim to educate, inform and try to enthuse black people to become involved in politics. I don't think this shouldn't be viewed as trying to set up competing groups, but trying to empower w/c disaffected people to understand that they need to get involved with politics if they want to see any change. The fact that OBV target black people doesn't make them anti-white, as some would suggest - as to the people involved, I claim no knowledge of their status, class or intentions, but if they can stimulate young black men and women to become involved in politics, I'd see that as a positive step.

Evil will triumph if good men do nothing

 

[newbie]

Why do people think this initiative is happening and recieving state funding? Can we talk about that a bit more?

I'd suggest that it's a result fo the 'happy coincidence' of a small number of black professionals realising that the state at this time wants to take advantage of what is widely percieved (and often is) as real discrimination against black people, esp younger ones, in order to build up a base for a) themselves b) the staus quo by dividing people along racial lines - the point being to nip any more radical or class based resistance currently developing in the bud. Let's try and look at this is in class terms - looking at it simple racial terms is playing along with their plans.

Over the years society at large has identified a number of different 'oppressions' highlighted clearly in the makeup of parliament. Middle-aged, white, middleclass (esp Oxbridge) CofE men are hugely overrepresented, so members of other groups have an identifiable grievance, which they organise around- some strands for a century or so, others more recently.

You're suggesting that having identified grievances, state institutions should take no action to attempt a remedy, because you'd prefer to build up extra-parliamentary "radical or class based resistance". Which is fair enough, but ignores the simple fact that the state's primary interest is to defend itself. It also ignores the impulse of party strategists to attempt to manipulate public opinion to their own advantage (most of this derives from within the labour party) and 'inclusivity' spin is aimed at winning votes. And, most importantly, ignores the fact that for many the grievances are real enough and to argue that institutions shouldn't even try to do anything about them is to argue for entrenching the status quo and perpetuating 'oppression'.

OBV, all women shortlists or the determination of some labour parties to select local, working class candidates may not produce outcomes that you find appealing, nor necessarily that their most fervent sponsors desire, but they do at least show an attempt to address concerns felt by a large part of society. That those attempts are so obviously riddled with contradictions and so clearly operate in the direct interests of a few careerists means they're mostly treated with derision. And so, in most seats, a middle-aged, white, middleclass (esp Oxbridge) CofE man will be suceeded by another .

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

But isn't it a bit of a strange approach to say 'let's help to build up proxies that only appear to represent us so that we can later sweep them away'.

Why do we have to got through making these these bogus forms only to have to start again in 100 years time? Why not actually begin now to create the political forms we want to see?

Unless you are saying that disnefranchised black people need to be brought through a series of stages that start with attracing them to fake representations of politics...

What do you suggest then? How do we get people involved in even contemplating the fact that there may be a different way to organise ourselves politically, when for many many young people, politics is a dirty word that is beyond the slightest bit of interest?

 

[butchersapron]

First, I have no problems with anyone at all criticising OBV or any other initiative - where i think we have a disagreement is whether targetting specific sectors of the population is ultimately divisive and pointless, or worse, actually strengthening inequalities and political power.

<big snip>

Ok, seems that we're just coming at this from slightly diff approaches - i think who has inititiated, funds and oversees the targetting and the running of the project is equally as important as its open stated aims. And the state never drops its interests or agenda.

 

[butchersapron]

Over the years society at large has identified a number of different 'oppressions' highlighted clearly in the makeup of parliament. Middle-aged, white, middleclass (esp Oxbridge) CofE men are hugely overrepresented, so members of other groups have an identifiable grievance, which they organise around- some strands for a century or so, others more recently.

As mentioned above in my others posts, just who is doing the actual identifying and how they're prepared to manipulate or use the reality of and the public perception of these realites to their own ends is what i'm trying to uncover here.

You're suggesting that having identified grievances, state institutions should take no action to attempt a remedy, because you'd prefer to build up extra-parliamentary "radical or class based resistance". Which is fair enough, but ignores the simple fact that the state's primary interest is to defend itself. It also ignores the impulse of party strategists to attempt to manipulate public opinion to their own advantage (most of this derives from within the labour party) and 'inclusivity' spin is aimed at winning votes. And, most importantly, ignores the fact that for many the grievances are real enough and to argue that institutions shouldn't even try to do anything about them is to argue for entrenching the status quo and perpetuating 'oppression'.

Hang on, i've based almost the whole of my case on what you say i've ignored - namely "the impulse of party strategists to attempt to manipulate public opinion to their own advantage" - that's been part of my argument since my first post, but i've also said that this party advantage is also directly connected to the maintenance of the staus quo - it's wider than simple party politics and concerns the structure that parties and politics itself is carried on within.

And, equally i've argued that these 'facts' are real and should be dealt with - but that i don't think this meythod is going to achieve that, that in fact it's likely to prove counter-productive and divisive - good for the state (as intended)but not good for the community.

OBV, all women shortlists or the determination of some labour parties to select local, working class candidates may not produce outcomes that you find appealing, nor necessarily that their most fervent sponsors desire, but they do at least show an attempt to address concerns felt by a large part of society. That those attempts are so obviously riddled with contradictions and so clearly operate in the direct interests of a few careerists means they're mostly treated with derision. And so, in most seats, a middle-aged, white, middleclass (esp Oxbridge) CofE man will be suceeded by another .

Again, concerns identified and acted on by who and on what basis, to what agenda? This is what i'm talking about, not whether discrimination exists or not.

I really think you've misread almost all my points on this thread.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

...does anyone think there will ever be a state-funded initiative solely to get working class people to participate in politics?

 

[ernestolynch]

...does anyone think there will ever be a state-funded initiative solely to get working class people to participate in politics?

There already is - its called GCSE Citizenship!

 

[chegrimandi]

There already is - its called GCSE Citizenship!

*please tell me you have to teach that, please tell me you have to teach that*

 

[Fozzie Bear]

There already is - its called GCSE Citizenship!

Is it any cop, though, in your experience?

 

[ernestolynch]

I think flimsier teaches it. It's a pile of wank, but of course the syllabus is open to interpretation by whoever teaches it.

(Not that I'm a teacher)

 

[Fozzie Bear]

(Not that I'm a teacher)

It's easy to forget these things...

 

[newbie]

As mentioned above in my others posts, just who is doing the actual identifying and how they're prepared to manipulate or use the reality of and the public perception of these realites to their own ends is what i'm trying to uncover here.

In this context isn't anyone who tries to manipulate opinion for their own ends a politician? You, me, the founders of Emilys List, OBV... You and I are chewing the cud on a BBS, they're trying to secure their own futures, and, at the same time, to push their political views which centre around a belief that their own group is under-represented. If they ever achieve power they'll give up attempting to represent some underdog or other and turn into a safe pair of hands (Hain, Prescott, Harman, Boeteng et al..). Why on earth would anyone expect differently?

Again, concerns identified and acted on by who and on what basis, to what agenda? This is what i'm talking about, not whether discrimination exists or not.

I really think you've misread almost all my points on this thread.

I don't think I have. I very largely agree with what you've said, the agenda is obvious and explicit, but I'm trying to put it into some sort of context. This is about a group aiming to bolster parliamentary representation, but you're criticising it for not promoting radical, class based, community resistance to parliament. You want to undermine the state, and argue that in this instance what the state is doing is effectively defending itself. I agree. It is effective.

Almost the entirety of the inclusivity debate is about middleaged, white m/c men shoring up their power with the help of fellow travellers. OBV or all women shortlists are designed to perpetuate the status quo by appearing (even being) responsive to public concern. What doesn't really add up is why anyone would think it's designed for anything else?

 

[butchersapron]

In this context isn't anyone who tries to manipulate opinion for their own ends a politician? You, me, the founders of Emilys List, OBV... You and I are chewing the cud on a BBS, they're trying to secure their own futures, and, at the same time, to push their political views which centre around a belief that their own group is under-represented. If they ever achieve power they'll give up attempting to represent some underdog or other and turn into a safe pair of hands (Hain, Prescott, Harman, Boeteng et al..). Why on earth would anyone expect differently?

But we're not all in the privileged postion of having the state, its institutions, it's media, its apologists and its money behind us in our political endeavours.

I don't think I have. I very largely agree with what you've said, the agenda is obvious and explicit, but I'm trying to put it into some sort of context. This is about a group aiming to bolster parliamentary representation, but you're criticising it for not promoting radical, class based, community resistance to parliament. You want to undermine the state, and argue that in this instance what the state is doing is effectively defending itself. I agree. It is effective.

Almost the entirety of the inclusivity debate is about middleaged, white m/c men shoring up their power with the help of fellow travellers. OBV or all women shortlists are designed to perpetuate the status quo by appearing (even being) responsive to public concern. What doesn't really add up is why anyone would think it's designed for anything else?

I'm at a total loss as to why you've directed the point at me then, and said that i've ignored it given that it's exactly what i've been saying all along. It would surely be better directed at those who are arguing that it is intended to do something else.

 

[tbaldwin]

I cant see why people are so overexcited about this. I reckon it's no bad thing to get specific groups to think about using their vote.
I'm sure their will be plenty of dodgy things about OBV but lets face it so is there about unions charities,local councils, politicians etc.

 

[newbie]

Primarily because you asked "Why do people think this initiative is happening and recieving state funding?" and I tried to answer, taking into account that you'd criticised "a small number of black professionals" using OBV to "nip any more radical or class based resistance currently developing in the bud". My point was that that's precisely the intention and I can't for the life of me see why anyone would expect otherwise.

 

[redsquirrel]

Primarily because you asked "Why do people think this initiative is happening and recieving state funding?" and I tried to answer, taking into account that you'd criticised "a small number of black professionals" using OBV to "nip any more radical or class based resistance currently developing in the bud". My point was that that's precisely the intention and I can't for the life of me see why anyone would expect otherwise.

Then surely we shouldn't support it?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Ok, seems that we're just coming at this from slightly diff approaches - i think who has inititiated, funds and oversees the targetting and the running of the project is equally as important as its open stated aims. And the state never drops its interests or agenda.

Yep yep fair enough, I think we are at different ends on this. Dig deep into a lot of places and you'll come across questionable characters with questionable ulterior motives, and in politics, they're usually the worst of the lot.

But isn't this problem inherent, to some degree or another, in almost every strand of politics in this country (and i include anarchist/direct action/anti-fascist action in this definition)? The "i'm right/you're wrong" bollox that disrupted the ESF, the arguing between anti-fash organisations, SWPers hijacking demo's, this sort of thing, where people purport to share common aims but, in reality, all they want is a little slice of glory or power for themselves.

And i come back again to the point that, whilst there may well be some people angling behind the scenes to improve their personal lot on the back of an otherwise well intentioned campaign or issue, that does not undermine the value in that campaign or initiative from taking place.

Whether in the short or longer term, such an initiative merely plays into the hands of the state, or reinforces it's power, I'm not so sure about. Knowledge is power and broadening peoples' perspectives about the political process and operation can potentially, in my view, serve a longer term purpose that could lead to the fundamental questions you pose being answered.

Need to do some work now but thanks for at least taking the time to have a rational debate on this, cheers

 

[newbie]

Then surely we shouldn't support it?

Have I said I 'support' it?

Of course, not offering some sort of token support clearly implies acceptance of invisibility of minorities. Same with Emily focussing on gender inequalities or a trade union sponsoring a candidate. If you offer full 'support' you're bolstering the status quo and being taken for a sucker, if you outright oppose them you're um bolstering the status quo rather more explicitly, which is clearly not a tenable position.

It's politics. It's dirty. Approach with cynicism.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

only one person said that and thats ern, our resident agent provacateur

no, according to Paulie he calls himself a teacher.

 

[flimsier]

I think flimsier teaches it. It's a pile of wank, but of course the syllabus is open to interpretation by whoever teaches it.

(Not that I'm a teacher)

I teach four Year 11 classes it - though it aint a GCSE.

As above, but I do stuff like 'how do we really bring about change?'

Kids hate it too - they always ask if they can do their Maths coursework (thinking I'll say yes because I teach Maths).

 

[krazie]

Its sad to see people opposed to a good thing. Shame on you people

 

[poster342002]

-----------

 

[davgraham]

Have I said I 'support' it?

Of course, not offering some sort of token support clearly implies acceptance of invisibility of minorities. Same with Emily focussing on gender inequalities or a trade union sponsoring a candidate. If you offer full 'support' you're bolstering the status quo and being taken for a sucker, if you outright oppose them you're um bolstering the status quo rather more explicitly, which is clearly not a tenable position.

It's politics. It's dirty. Approach with cynicism.

Is it really the case of such binary opposites? What if the OBV organisation found itself developing or partly funding a movement that threatened to go beyond parliamentary boundaries?

After all having mobilised a constituency you cannot simply turn it on and off like a tap. Many of these organisations exist in this contradictory situation and for a time at least can be used.

At the end of the day the usefulness or otherwise of initiatives like OBV [which I actually know very liitle about] is often a simple, practical question. It can be likened to working within Trade Unions perhaps?

Gra

 

[kea]

It can be likened to working within Trade Unions perhaps?

do trade unions distinguish between individuals on the basis of their colour, sexuality, gender or other personal characteristic?

 

[Dilzybhoy]

it is, that's why i objected to the "black nazi" crap and the "They should be named "Operation stop whitey" " crap

forget it, this just isn't worth it

But if there was an organisation trying to get white people to vote for white candidates they would get short shrift (rightly so) from decent human beings.

 

[TeeJay]

If a certain section of the population doesn't vote, feels cut off from or left out of politics and doesn't get involved then it is OK for an organisation or a political party to conduct targetted activities to address this issue. This will require change on both sides (political parties and the non-voters).

However promoting the idea that only by electing a woman or a dark skinned person or whatever will certain issues be addressed and certain policies adopted is a farce. It is playing into the very problem of "vote for someone of your own skin colour/gender". I think that while targetting a group in general is fine, and addressing "generally-group-specific" issues - such as childcare or racism or stop & search etc - is fine, we should really be looking at this as a *whole* society: *all* elected representatives (of all genders/skin colours) should be expected to address this agenda. Focussing on a candidates skin colour or genitalia is exactly the wrong thing to do. It is a short-term, tokenistic, quota-based, hypocritical, easy-to-do, avoiding-the-issue approach that can only be justified in the short term or if there are really no other ways to approach the problem.

To use two examples: The Green Party uses gender-balancing when drawing up lists for PR elections where there is a list (eg Euros and London Assembly): at least one of the top three on the list have to be women and the list is adjusted if need be (otherwise the order is strictly determined by a vote by all local/regional members). It is worth noting however that a lot of the time women take top spots (eg Caroline Lucas, Jean Lambert etc (MEPs)) without any assistance. So do gay candidates (eg Darren Johnson MLA) and Irish ones (eg Noel Lynch) (both are/were on the London Assembly).

There is currently no "race balancing" (at least in the formal rules) even tho' last year there was a lot of mud-slinging by another party (ie respect) saying that the Greens are "white male and middle class - therefore racist". This creates a pressure - one that can be seen in all the mainstream parties - to stand "ethnic minority" candidates especially in certain wards where there are large numbers of the "target ethnicity". Personally I find this a pretty sad state of affairs.

I can kind of accept a "compromise" where there is no *formal* rule about "racial/ethnic balancing" or targetting but the membership simply decides in a free vote that a certain candidate will be more appealing to the local population than another. If it is left like this then the local membership can make their own minds up how far they want to simply contest an election by having the "right face" (colour/gender/ethnicity/surname) or how far they want to fight the contest purely on the policies and the personality/track record of the candidate.

The final second example is in Iraq and Afghanistan where the elections require that a ceratin proportion of people elected are women, and rules are in place so that ethnic and religious groups are all represented and have some kind of veto over the new constitution. In these cases there are good pragmatic arguments that a pure "free choice" could have very negative outcomes for personal freedom (of women and certain small minorities for example) and where civil wars and a national break up is to be avoided. However, these should hopefully be transitional arrangements so that eventually, once certain basic laws are "locked in", elections can move to being entirely by free choice with no quotas.

I don't think that the UK should move towards "quotas" of any sort, unless it is through making appointments to the House of Lords / an Upper House, which can maybe be used to ensure more "balance" (and since an upper house will only be more for discussion and debate rather than replacing the sovereignty of the (fully elected) commons).

 

[redsquirrel]

Of course, not offering some sort of token support clearly implies acceptance of invisibility of minorities. Same with Emily focussing on gender inequalities or a trade union sponsoring a candidate. If you offer full 'support' you're bolstering the status quo and being taken for a sucker, if you outright oppose them you're um bolstering the status quo rather more explicitly, which is clearly not a tenable position.

What about the argument that the IWCA and others put forward that the growth of this type of organisation increases the conflicts between different groups?