Disney's Magic Kingdom

The Orwellian dystopia of Toy Story 3 is the latest in a long line of films by Pixar/Disney and Twentieth Century Fox with a strong moral message. From the environmentalism of the Ice Age franchise through to Wall-E’s critique of human decadence and excessive consumerism there has been a growing trend for animated allegories which progressively challenge the status quo. It seems odd that Disney – inextricably associated with the American establishment – could produce such radical fables. What next – a posthumous Noble Peace Prize for Walt Disney?

Of course much of Hollywood’s output remains conservative. Films such as The Incredibles and Finding Nemo reinforce ideas of the ‘nuclear family’ whilst Ratatouille’s notion that a genius can come from any walk of life converges with the traditional ‘American dream’. But it still seems strange that Hollywood can take an environmentalist and anti-consumerist stance. After all, without consumerism Hollywood ceases to exist.

I may have missed the subtle parables of my childhood Disney films – Robin Hood, The Jungle Book, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast – but they seemed more simple. They were about Kings, Queens and Princesses. There was always a straightforward fight between good and evil. Nowadays, knowing what ‘good’ is isn’t quite so simple. Toy Story 3 echoes Animal Farm by suggesting that a totalitarian police state is wrong. Who could disagree with that? But is the ‘freedom’ of American democracy really much better? It’s a compelling if skewed message.

Stark parallels can be drawn with Hollywood’s treatment of Native American Indians. The old Westerns were quite simple – they were about good versus evil. Cowboys were good and ‘Indians’ were evil. Everyone knew Native Americans were backwards. They had been demonised and ghettoised for decades and the hegemonic rise of ‘American’ culture relied on their marginalisation. Yet once they were crushed, Native Americans underwent a remarkable resurrection and Hollywood gave them a makeover. Since Dances with Wolves you can barely go through a whole film without a wise old Indian philosophising and counselling a disillusioned white man. Why? Because Native American culture is no longer a threat – it has been disarmed and romanticised.

It’s a similar situation with Hollywood today. In many ways Disney remains reactionary and conservative, but where it does take a ‘progressive’ stance it is not because of altruism, it is a response to changed circumstance. In the same way that trans-national corporations adopt environmental policies, they do so because of public pressure and international consensus. Corporations must be seen to care about the environment – but all they care about is profit margins.

Ultimately, whatever message Disney gives – whether they give one at all – they do so to make money. They’re ‘family films’ so why shouldn’t they be about family? And why not try to encourage people to care a little more about the environment, even when Hollywood represents the height of capitalist decadence? In the end, who cares? What else are you going to watch on a Sunday afternoon?

In Britain today war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength – and the media agrees

British government announcements regarding the ongoing war in Afghanistan remind me of a John Pilger article I read last year entitled Welcome to Orwell’s World. In this piece, Pilger draws on Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four in his analysis of US – and by extension, British – foreign policy and shows a disturbing parallel between the censored dystopia of Orwell’s fiction and the lies told by leaders of Western societies today:

“In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell described a superstate called Oceania, whose language of war inverted lies that passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’, ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past’. Barack Obama is the leader of a contemporary Oceania. In two speeches at the close of the decade, the Nobel Peace Prize winner affirmed that peace was no longer peace, but rather a permanent war that “extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan” to “disorderly regions and diffuse enemies”.”

This “language of war” is constantly drilled into us, not just by politicians, but the mainstream media as well. Cast your mind back six or seven years and the ‘War on Terror’ was generally accepted as a neo-con fiction designed as an excuse to perpetually wage war against any country or people that had strategic or economic value to the West, or who could be used as a convenient scapegoat (as mentioned in a previous EoP blog). It is now routinely described as a necessary conflict to spread human rights and stop terrorists carrying out massacres on our streets. Al-Qaeda are no longer described as a miniscule extremist faction, but as a monolithic organisation that have cells in almost all countries. The fact that the US, UK and their allies siphon off the natural resources of Iraq, Afghanistan and numerous other countries is no longer a topic for discussion. These occupied countries now have ‘democratically-elected’ governments who are in no way puppets of the West, apparently. To suggest anything else would be to question the values of Western society itself.

However, with Wikileaks’ release of the US ‘war logs’ from the conflict in Afghanistan last month – and the subsequent mainstream media response – it appeared that the sanitising mask that had been covering the Middle Eastern conflict was beginning to slip. And yet the overall reaction to the ‘revelations’ such as “hundreds of civilians killed by coalition troops,” and “covert unit hunts leaders for 'kill or capture'” was one of grim recognition. Was it really a surprise to anyone that the US and its allies have killed hundreds of non-combatants? It seems more than likely that these files were only the tip of the atrocity iceberg. So why weren’t people more shocked as the Guardian purported to be? The answer lies in the “language of war” which we have become so accustomed to. We know massacres are taking place and that illegal occupations are being carried out by our governments, but over time this has become the norm – it is the everyday. War is now peace.

The media do talk about the troop and civilian death toll, but this is never really in terms of the conflict being fundamentally wrong. Deaths are usually portrayed as a lamentable but necessary cost for ‘completing the mission’. No coverage is given to the viewpoint that the wars in the Middle East are just modern day imperialism – a way of reinforcing economic dominance on a global scale by plundering resources and crushing dissent. The BBC’s claims of impartiality and of giving every viewpoint a fair airing are quite simply laughable when you start to analyse their coverage of anything regarding ‘national security’ (or perhaps ‘national interest’ would be a more fitting term?). The next time you watch a report on the war in Afghanistan see how often the journalist refers to ‘getting the job done’ or the regularity with which a sound bite is played of a well-groomed officer saying ‘we’re making good progress and protecting the civilian population’. When reporters explain what the rather bland-sounding term ‘getting the job done’ actually means it usually involves ‘forcing the Taliban out of their strongholds’ and ‘bringing stability’ to the country (helping previously oppressed girls go to school seems a particularly common theme used to appeal to Western sensibilities). These aims are never questioned by the BBC – to do so would be to undermine the legitimacy of our ‘free society’ and cast aspersions on the motives of our democratically-elected leaders. But if you think a little more about what this cheer-leading of ‘getting the job done’ actually entails a far more disturbing truth is revealed. The BBC – and the majority of mainstream journalists – are sanitising state-sanctioned murder and occupation, all for the pursuit of the West’s economic and cultural domination.

Television coverage of the Afghan war usually consists of images of soldiers firing over walls at unseen enemies, or grainy night-vision footage of troops running around while the journalist’s voice-over utters bland, state-approved sound bites like ‘the fort comes under attack twice a day, but the soldiers are determined to get the job done’. If the 10 O’clock news instead regularly showed the aftermath of air-strikes on villages with pieces of civilians scattered throughout the bombed-out wreckage of their homes, and the reality of the damage inflicted by modern infantry warfare, whilst also allowing a full spectrum of views to be publicised, then there is little doubt that public opinion in the West would turn against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition, we may even avoid future conflicts in places such as Yemen and Iran. But this simply won’t happen if the mainstream media acts as a filter for the real face of occupation and war, sifting out most of the ‘disturbing’ images (and facts), replacing them with inanities and implicit support for the ruling elite’s agenda.

In July, Jon Snow wrote a blog entitled Sanitising War in which he wrestled with the morality of his role in how war is reported. When discussing the “absence of bodies” in war coverage and the families who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan, he wrote: “It could not be right, could it, for them to have their loss splashed so brutally and bloodily across our screens? Or am I myself busy sanitising war?” To answer your question, Jon: yes, you are, but don’t worry – you’re not the only one.

A Victory for Keynesianism?

According to the Office for National Statistics, economic growth between April and June this year was the fastest rate in nearly a decade. GDP rose by 1.2% during this period – primarily due to an 8.5% increase in construction output and a 0.7% increase in consumer spending. But don’t send off the thank you cards to Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg just yet, because the Coalition’s Emergency Budget didn’t take place until 22 June.

The recent economic growth is significant – not because it guarantees recovery – but because it suggests that Labour’s policy to invest rather than cut was working. The economic growth of the last quarter is underpinned by a 0.3% advance in Government spending. This includes £986m towards transport projects and £480m towards new school buildings – most of which has been abandoned by the Coalition. A large proportion of private construction relies on state subsidy and public contracts – so where else is the stimulus going to come from? Cameron is desperately trying to encourage international trade to fill this government void – but the international economic situation is far from stable – whilst Cameron’s diplomatic faux-pas will probably undermine any meaningful discussions, anyway.

Furthermore, an increase in consumer confidence is contributing to the economic recovery, but what will happen to confidence when the cuts of the Comprehensive Spending Review come into effect, VAT rises, public sector redundancies hit and unemployment increases?

The Coalition recognise that the economy is in for a “bumpy ride” but they seem intent on steamrollering through their regressive economic policies. Perhaps economic fragility – and even a possible ‘double-dip’ recession – is a price worth paying to reduce the role of the state. But for all those interested in economic recovery rather than political point-scoring, maybe Labour’s spending wasn’t so “crazy” after all.

A history of the PR age

The importance of press relations in politics is about as original as the ‘new, progressive’ politics of the coalition Government i.e. not very. The rise of PR coincided with the rise of New Labour, and began during the era of Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell.*

Remember cool Britannia? After the dull grey years of John Major, people cottoned on to Tony Blair as a man of the people. Not only did he talk politics, but he looked and did normal stuff like strum an electric guitar (all be it in a suit) and kick a football around. To Alistair Campbell, this was all brilliant, and culminated in Noel Gallagher knocking on No.10 and sipping champagne (“someone get the camera out!”).

The Tories were a little slow to catch on to the idea that they needed a leader who could get down with the ordinary folks. After all, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. So it was the turn of William Hague to strut his ‘normal’ stuff. Now Alistair Campbell gets a lot of slack, but at least he could do PR properly. I’m not sure what Hague’s advisers were thinking when they told him it would be a good idea to sit in a log flume in a cap, and to say he drank 14 pints of beer a day. Utter nonsense and the Tories were punished for it (and their ridiculous ‘last chance to save the pound’ campaign) in the 2001 general election.

Everything was hunky-dory for Labour until the Iraq war in 2003. Cool Britannia was denounced and the knives were out for Tony Blair. Alistair Campbell had more important things to do like save Blair’s skin. These were serious times.

When David Cameron was elected as the leader of the Conservative Party in 2005, there was a resurgence in the use of PR in politics. The Tories changed their logo from a blue torch to a tree, Cameron got out his push bike and the message was ‘look at us, we’ve changed, we’re now environmentally friendly’. And PR wasn’t only about promoting one’s self. It became a weapon that the Tories used aggressively against Gordon Brown.

In the run up to the 2010 general election people started analysing whether Gordon Brown was comfortable in front of the camera, and if not, then perhaps we should question his ability to ‘connect’ with the public, and even his ability to lead the country. Unfortunately, this attack was taken seriously enough by Labour to start a backlash. Cameron was often portrayed as a shallow salesman, something Jon Cruddas thought was a mistake. However these slanging matches were a main stay of the 2010 election. Trading personal insults on the ability of a politician to be able to come across ‘well’ in the media, and especially on TV, signalled a new, unpleasant dimension of electioneering. One which is also Blair’s legacy.

*Actually, I lie. It originally started in the US with John F. Kennedy and continued with Ronald Reagan, but that’s a whole new blog we’ll perhaps save for another day.

Living in the age of PR

Are we living in the information age? The age of austerity? The age of endarkment? A moral stone age? Definitely no to this last one. I propose that we’re actually living in the age of press relations, where as long as what you’re saying sounds good, policy and substance won’t be scrutinised by the electorate.

It’s happened before when Cameron said pre-May 5 that the Tories were the party of the ‘great ignored’ (That sounds great, David, but what does it actually mean?) And it happened again today, when the Chancellor George Osborne talked about creating a ‘fairer society’ whilst making public sector cuts.

I believe the primary purpose for Osborne using ‘fairer society’ was to make people think his proposals are a means to create something good. Although there is no unbiased definition of what a ‘fairer society’ is, its weakness is that it’s generally agreed to be a good thing. So by equating cuts with ‘fairer society’, if you’re not sure whether the cuts are a bad thing, it will create ‘a fairer society’, a good thing, so they can’t be all that bad can they?

Well, it depends what you mean by ‘fairer society’ and how you get there. What Osborne meant by a ‘fairer society’ today was that which has its finances in order and does not force the next generation to pay the debts of this generation. Well again, that sounds great George, but how are you going to do that? Answer: by cutting public sector spending on policies that will hit the poorest and disadvantaged in society the hardest (reported on this blog ). We already talk about the ‘lost generation’, so I’d rather we concentrate on making sure the current generation has employment opportunities and can afford an education.

For me, the Tories’ cuts will create the antithesis of what I consider a ‘fairer society’, so it’s only when you look at the policy do you realise you’re not talking about the same good idea of a ‘fairer society’. A warning that this phrase and similar 'buzz concepts' such as 'progressive' and 'social justice' should not be taken at face value.

If I ever hear someone on a vox pop saying “yeah, I think it's a good idea because it’ll create a fairer society’. the Conservatives' job will be done, and I'll be moving to Antarctica to live amongst the Emperor penguins.

Fair trade cigarettes?

No, I thought you hadn’t heard of them. And neither had I until listening to this excellent programme broadcast on Radio 4 today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00t8rky/The_Battle_for_Hearts_and_Lungs/

The effect of tobacco production and use in developing countries has many economic, political and health repercussions, all explored in the programme. For example, how do you monitor the use of child labour on tobacco farms? How can the Government afford tackling smoking-related health issues when there is already an HIV and malaria epidemic? How can you avoid the negative health side effects of farming the crop? How can you suppress advertising cigarettes when an economy depends on tobacco crops? How can you encourage farmers to diversify the crops they grow when tobacco is the most lucrative? All these big questions are addressed with statistics in the programme, but what struck me first of all was now that the UK is becoming more aware of the need for fair trade produce, why are we not pushing for the same with our cigarettes?

Despite the large sums of money made by cigarette companies (BAT’s 2009 profit was close to $4.5bn for example), farmers in countries such as Malawi and Uganda are still struggling to survive. The farmers receive no profit, and can spend more on pesticides and transport than they will receive from selling the crop. In a desperate bid to raise cash for food and education, they sell their tobacco to middle-men for as little as 5 cents per kilo, way below the minimum price of $2 set by the Government each year.

Middle-men are in fact illegal in Malawi, and is just one of the measures introduced to try and combat this injustice. However, like many developing countries whose economies depend on exportable goods, they’re often at the mercy of international companies.

So here’s where fair trade could come into play. The profile and popularity of fair trade products has risen in the UK, with some retailers now only stocking the fair trade version of goods such as bananas. Whilst there is still a long way to go, the effect of fair trade produce on farmers in developing countries should not be underestimated. The improvements have gone beyond economics, to other parts of the farmers lives such as health, empowerment, business and environment and farming systems:

http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2009/f/1_ft_banana_reportweb.pdf

Despite the decline in UK smokers, cigarettes will always be a necessity to people in this country. So why not produce a fair trade cigarette to help the lives of the tobacco growers? I searched for them and the nearest thing I could find was ‘ethically-sourced’ 1st Nation cigarettes. They were denied fair trade accreditation by the Fairtrade Foundation on the basis that tobacco is too politically sensitive crop for the organization to engage with:

http://peopleandplanet.org/navid5986

Of course there are ethical and moral arguments against fair trade cigarettes, which could affect the credibility of the organization. Perhaps we should be looking at the bigger picture and find a way to reduce the dependence on tobacco, but that’s not the day-to-day concerns of tobacco growing farmers. They have no say in how the macro-economic structure of their country is built. So whilst I understand the concerns and possible contradiction in fair trade tobacco, I can’t help feeling that the livelihoods of thousands of farmers in the developing world deserve some help, and paying the farmers a fair price for their tobacco may be a start.

Tory Policy Isn't Welfare

In a recent article in the Sunday Times, David Cameron described the loss of £5.2bn annually through benefit fraud and errors as “the one area of ingrained waste that out-ranks all others”.

Cameron’s aspersion – forgetting its reliance on questionable figures – is deeply flawed. Firstly, the vast majority of the £5.2bn figure can be attributed to system failures rather than fraud. Secondly, labelling benefit fraud as waste that “out-ranks all others” conveniently ignores the fact that benefit fraud is dwarfed in comparison to the revenue lost through tax evasion and avoidance.

HM Revenue & Customs estimate that there is a £40bn gap between tax collected and what HMRC calculates should be collected – and many economists argue that this figure is even higher. This figure breaks down into £7bn lost through tax evasion, £7bn lost through tax avoidance and £7.2bn lost through inaccurate self-assessments. I’m no economist, but it seems fairly obvious that if you’re committed to reducing waste and raising revenue then tackling the tax gap would be a good place to start. Yet, for some reason, the government isn’t inclined to do this. Maybe it’s something to do with the type of people who avoid/evade tax – the millionaire bankers, accountants, lawyers and judges. Or ‘the Cabinet’ as David Cameron likes to call them.

A couple of months ago, Labour MP Katy Clark grilled the government on the amount of public money spent on advertising tackling benefit fraud opposed to preventing tax evasion. In the last year, HMRC spent £633,284 (excluding VAT) “on advertising for the purposes of preventing tax evasion”. There was no expenditure in the previous two years. I guess no-one was fiddling their taxes back then.

In contrast, the following amounts were budgeted for advertising tackling benefit fraud in each of the last three financial years:

2007-08 - £6.5 million

2008-09 - £6.0 million

2009-10 - £5.0 million

In the last three years £633,284 has been spent on trying to reduce a £40bn annual tax gap whilst £17.5 million has been spent on trying to reduce the relatively minor amount lost through benefit fraud. But the amount spent on advertising benefit fraud is not meant to reduce lost revenue, it is intended to reinforce the stereotype of unemployed scroungers and benefit cheats. It’s about inciting bigotry and hatred about some of the most vulnerable people in society. It also fortifies the positions of government lackeys in the City.

All fraud is wrong and should be tackled, but the government’s selective demonisation of benefit claimants over bankers illustrates that ConDem policy is motivated not by economic need but by ideological dogmatism. But don’t worry, we’re all in this together, right?