After a few emotional speeches, we marched across the city and back, gathering supporters as we went. At its busiest, the protest was estimated to have been more than 1,000 people. On arrival back at the BBC some protesters entered the building and were pushed outside by the police. A door was smashed as police tried to remove the crowd back from the entrance. To much cheering from the crowd, an activist climbed on to the foyer of the building and hoisted a Palestinian flag on the BBC’s flag pole. A bit of a scuffle ensued as people prevented the police from arresting him.

Oxford road is one of busiest bus routes in the country. It was blocked for about an hour: people were not inclined to disperse.

The size of the crowd and atmosphere on the streets indicated that anger over Palestinian human rights violations has been simmering under the surface of the city for some time. That the BBC is a legitimate target is obvious to those of us who follow events in the Middle East and how they are reported closely. But perhaps this position requires a bit more explanation.

The BBC has a guide for its journalists that provides background to the situation and advice about the type of language that should be used to describe events, which MULE has managed to obtain. An abbreviated version is available on the BBC website for the public.  What is absent from the public version, however, is the stress placed on not referring to the legality of, well, anything, unless it is specifically attributed. Under the heading ‘ILLEGAL OCCUPATION’ is the instruction to “Be very careful indeed.”

This means that BBC reporters are effectively barred from describing Israel’s occupation, walls, attacks on civilian populations, population transfers, detention of children, torture of prisoners, detention without charge, siege of Gaza or, presumably, acts of piracy on the high seas, as illegal.

The implication is that for the BBC to come down on the side of international law and entities that support it would be bias. The Geneva Convention, designed to prevent the atrocities that were committed against Jews before the end of the Second World War happening again elsewhere in the world, and which Israel repeatedly flouts, apparently represents a position that the BBC could not possibly take.  Similarly, the International Court of Justice and their ruling against the Walls and multiple UN Security Council resolutions. The BBC is, apparently, above the law.

Does this mean that anything that Israel has done or will do will never be described by the BBC as ‘illegal’?  The attack on the flotilla is a contravention of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. A search on the BBC website indicates that this was an unreported fact.

The Gaza flotilla Q & A section on the BBC website states that “The activists also say they wanted to make the point that, in their view, the blockade is illegal under international law.” But the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has also stated that the blockade is illegal. Although this was apparently not reported by the BBC, it was widely reported on international news wires such as Reuters on the day prior to this page being updated. The statement is misleading.

It is also stated on this web page that who started the violence was disputed. However, it goes on to say that the video released by the Israeli military, showing soldiers being beaten by passengers, “stops just before the shooting begins”. Clearly, the BBC accepts the Israeli story.

I first visited Palestine in 2002 and vividly remember being confused as to why we had to go through a checkpoint when we weren’t going from Palestinian territory to Israeli territory or vice versa. I quickly learned that that was the reality of a military occupation. I later learned that the military occupation that Palestinians live under can also mean being fired at by soldiers on your way to school/university/work; being told what crops you are allowed to grow; being prevented from taking your crops to markets; being told whether or not the person that you are married to can live in the same place as you, or being forced to irrigate your land with sewage water because of extreme water scarcities. I learned none of this from the mainstream media. These are the small stories that don’t hit the headlines.

A BBC report about an event in Palestine or Israel typically involves a brief description of the event, followed by interviews with supposedly relevant commentators. On a good day, these will present the Palestinian as well as the Israeli perspective. What is utterly absent is context. It is this lack of context in mainstream media reports that I believe has led to the majority of British citizens being so ignorant about the reality of the situation in the Middle East, despite the fact that events regularly hit the headlines. Prior to visiting Palestine, I was one of those people. The results of a study conducted by Glasgow University in 2001 found that, out of a sample of 300 young people, 71 per cent did not know that it was the Israelis who were occupying the territories.

I spoke to one BBC journalist recently who expressed professional pride in having worked for one BBC news programme because it could “get away with more” than other news programmes, precisely because of the requirement for it to provide a context to stories. The programme was the children’s news slot Newsround.

I didn’t watch a lot of the BBC coverage about the attack on the Free Gaza flotilla because I was too busy trying to find out what had really happened. I am told that it regurgitated the footage released by the Israelis when footage shot by those on the boats was available on other channels.

Israel’s media blackout of the event, which involved firstly blocking the ships’ communication systems, then confiscating all audio and visual equipment and media and finally holding prisoners for several days, meant that the mainstream British media failed to show evidence of the event that was not released by the Israelis. As Craig Murray has pointed out, by the time the witnesses were released and the real story came out, the event was no longer “news”.

In the hours after the attack, while the BBC reported that various people were calling for an independent, impartial inquiry, they failed to mention Israel’s confiscation of all evidence, which surely precludes the possibility of this happening.

The events surrounding the flotilla raid did not shock me in the same way that they did others. I’m familiar with the brutality of the Israeli regime, which I believe people in this country are shielded from by our media. My feelings are horribly familiar: surely they have gone too far this time, something must change now. Followed by a hole of despair opening in my stomach: no, they haven’t. They will get away with it. Some sources have claimed that the attack may even have been sanctioned by Washington, as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel met with Netanyahu on the day it was confirmed that the Israeli Navy would intercept the ships.

Another issue that has apparently been completely absent from any BBC reports is that the released people have reported widespread physical abuse and humiliation during the days of their detention.

Bias in media reporting isn’t just about what is said, it’s about what isn’t said. But at what point do we shift from claiming the BBC is biased, to claiming that it actively covers up acts of Israeli brutality?

Here are a few clangers from the BBC journalists’ guide:

• “Under international law, Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, although it no longer has a permanent military presence there. We need to be careful with our language so as not to give the impression that the BBC is favouring one side’s position. In BBC programmes it is more accurate to talk about an ‘end to Israel’s military presence’ rather than the end of occupation.”

• “The word ‘assassination’ is often used to describe a senior figure who has been murdered but the word ‘killed’ or ‘killing’ may be perfectly adequate. Plain simple language is preferable to more complex or emotive language.”

• “So, for example, it is preferable to say that ‘Sharon’s visit and Palestinian frustration at the failure of the peace process sparked the intifada or uprising’ rather than it ‘led’ to it or ’started’ it.”

• Hebron: “The West Bank town is a frequent flashpoint for violence… Hence the small but rather militant group of settlers living in an overwhelmingly Palestinian, or Arab, city, and the need for a continuing IDF presence to keep the factions apart.”

Leonie Nimmo

In past years, World Refugee Day has been used by City Council bosses to declare Manchester an open and tolerant city that has benefited enormously from successive waves of immigrants, many of whom were refugees. This year again, the Council has organised Refugee Month, which includes football tournament and a number of smaller social events in local libraries.

In truth, refugees coming to the UK have never had it easy. In the 17^th century, the French Huguenots escaping from the persecution of Louis XIV were subject to tax discrimination. Russian and East European Jews arriving at the end of the 19^th century were often met with hostile reception, leading to the 1905 Aliens Act which for the first time limited immigration to Britain. While thousands of Belgians successfully sought sanctuary in Britain from the fighting of the First World War, other nationalities were classified as ‘enemy aliens’. Even Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany faced strict immigration restrictions, though eventually children and some other categories were exempt from the visa regulations.

After the Second World War, the 1951 Geneva Convention finally enshrined the protection of refugees in international law. However, newly-arriving asylum seekers are still met with discrimination and hostility.

Manchester provides a prime example of the two-sided and contradictory attitude to refugees and immigrants in the UK. On the one hand multicultural life is celebrated at Chinese New Year and along the iconic Curry Mile. In July Exodus Festival, a public celebration of refugee art and culture, returns to Manchester once again. One the other hand, modern-day refugees face systematic attempts to bar them from taking part in the city’s life.

Dallas Court, near Salford’s quickly growing MediaCityUK, is home to staff from the UK Border Agency and to their infamous ’snatch squads’. Often operating in the early morning, these snatch squads head out in blacked-out vans to raid the houses of asylum-seeking families whose cases have been turned down, and are known for kicking in doors before children have gone to school in an attempt to catch the whole family at once.

There is also Pennine House, on the other side of town at Manchester Airport. It is a sterile-looking grey building without windows and a small courtyard surrounded by high walls and barbed wire. Most would see this as a prison, but in official language it is a ‘short-term holding facility’. Failed asylum seekers are first locked up before being transferred to one of the bigger immigration detention centres elsewhere in the country. Men, women and children can be held here for indefinite periods, despite having committed no crime, having had no trial and having received no sentence.

In the city centre, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) in Piccadilly completes the carrot and stick approach to asylum by offering financial incentives to migrants to ‘voluntarily’ return to the countries from which they fled. Here economic logic prevails: it might be cheaper to offer a small amount of cash to refugees who have found the asylum process insurmountable than to begin the costly process of deportation. So-called ‘illegal’ migrants face a choice between destitution and severe exploitation, often in the very culture industries officials are so keen to exalt, under the permanent threat of detention and deportation, and returning with a bit of start-up money to the places they felt compelled to risk their lives leaving.

These little-known examples offer a different view of Manchester Day: as a city of shame with a cynical attitude to World Refugee Day and a place of persistent and systematic hostility and inequality for migrants. Manchester Day should be a celebration, but also a remembrance of those living in fear of detention and deportation.

Rob Ryman

Conservative co-ops - they could use the old co-op logo

Back in February this year during the unveiling of the unconvincing “I’ve never voted Conservative, but…” campaign, Cameron reaffirmed the plans, explaining to public sector workers: ‘here is your budget, deliver this service, and if you do it more efficiently and more effectively, you can keep some of the savings that you make.’

Now their public sector manifesto, “An Invitation to Public Sector Workers”, has outlined the plans further and made it a central part of their election pitch.

According to the manifesto, “Public sector co-ops will be paid through either outcomes-based contracts or according to their ability to attract users, like parents and patients. Benefits will include greater freedom to innovate and the chance to share in any financial surpluses created as a result of making improvements and efficiencies.”

In essence, public sector workers would operate independently of the government while using state funding, given to them in the same manner as contracts to private firms. Every year the workers will receive, alongside increased wages depending on how many “users” they attract, any savings they make on those contracts to be divided up among themselves. The theory behind this dividend-based system being that the incentive of an annual payout from such savings will encourage workers to work more efficiently and waste less state resources.

Changed?

The first sign that the Tory Party has reformed very little is the fact Cameron appointed the Conservative Co-operative Movement’s first chairman, which undermines somewhat their claims to be independent and democratic. Since then the Movement itself doesn’t appear to be moving anywhere, having not even had a single annual general meeting in the past three years.

They have changed chairman, however, with a former leader of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament now taking charge – but the surreal image on their website of the Conservative logo coupled with the phrase “Power to the People!” seems even more out of place considering this chairman was installed by Cameron as well. So it’s “Power to Dave”, then.

The second is the fact that these co-op members have no control over the incoming capital, since it is still firmly in the hands of the state, delivered through a “tariff system which gives fixed levels of payment in return for the achievement of national standards”. In an era when all three parties have made it clear that there will be enormous public sector cuts, these fixed levels of payment will inevitably decrease. After these budget cuts, workers would have to make a choice between their wages and the services they offer; nice guy Dave Cameron would in that case essentially be giving the co-operatives a revolver, and telling them to either put it to their own heads or the services they are trying to operate.

Corporate friendships

There is another option, however: putting the revolver down and cosying up to the private sector. In a brief section in their “Power to public sector workers” document, they claim they will give “co-ops freedom to go into joint-ventures with outside experts, buying in managerial and operational expertise where necessary”. This coded reference to the “outside” private sector suggests that the experts in a job centre, clinic or school will not be well-qualified, experienced staff who know how to provide public services, but the sort of people who know how to turn a profit.

On the frontline, it may see more and more temp workers recruited by workers who, by virtue of being in a co-operative and not a state run workplace, no longer benefit from levels of pay set nationally and simply cannot afford to bring in a new member to share dwindling profits. In short, the Tory promise to cut public services, and their proposal to make these co-op workers’ wages dependent entirely on dwindling budgets, would leave them with little choice but to accept a pay cut, fire people themselves, or bring in the private sector. Temp staff, redundancies and management consultancies all round!

The Tory plans make clear that if one of these “enterprises” begins to fail, there will be no state “bailout”, and the workers will be responsible for finding the funds to keep the services running. But the definition of failure is problematic and reveals how the Tory principles may be harmful. If a school is performing adequately but with a massive budget shortfall, the government would evidently not fill the gap but instead treat it as a failed contract and find someone else to take that contract. But in this case, would the school be expected to close? If it did close, who would have the “contract” to provide services for the users – surely another local school? It is therefore quite likely that a failed co-operative would produce a serious domino effect in the local area; schools may well be particularly affected since in the event of closure as much as several thousand children will have to be relocated.

In fact, such failures would be so catastrophic that public services would be forced to turn to the either the private sector for funding or rent their assets, or both. Although the Tory plans make it clear that an organisation cannot sell their land or buildings, since they are still owned by the state, it could lease them out to private firms. Therefore our school, which begins “failing” because of massive budget cuts handed down by the state, would have the usual option of firing staff. But it can also bring in private funding, who will only be interested in making a profit somehow; and that profit may well come from that company renting the school’s playing fields, or maybe a number of buildings, to another company.

Lack of Clarity

Given this ambiguity, Co-operatives UK have given a rather uneasy response to the plans, saying that: “Before we can decide whether these proposals really offer practical options for public service workers, Co-operatives UK would need to see more detail, but we certainly welcome increased debate about the importance of co-operatives to our economy.” This is hardly a ringing endorsement, which is unsurprising given that the Tories have put forward plans that at best seem confused and poorly thought through and at worst a direct attempt to encourage the privatisation of public services.

Perhaps the more bullish final word should be given to George Holyoake, an important member of the Co-operative Union, the predecessor of today’s Co-operatives UK, after whom Holyoake House in Manchester city centre is named. Involved in socialism and co-operation throughout the nineteenth century, back in 1892 he made this comment in his autobiography:

“Tories, by the law of their being, seek authority by which the majority of them intend the control of public affairs for their own advantage.  They supply money for corruption, intending to refund themselves by place and profit when the resources of the State come under their manipulation.”

They won’t be putting that on their posters any time soon.

Tom Fox

from Last Hours election leaflet

Most people have few hopes or fears for what a change of government can bring, and the common attitude towards politicians and politics in general is one of cynicism. Perhaps at most you might think one party might be slightly less bad than the others? The best of a bad bunch? After all, if you’re actually involved in one of the parties, you’d be one of a tiny minority, and if you even bothered to vote in some recent elections you’d have been in a minority too. Has it always been this way?

Perhaps people used to be more passionate about elections. The end of 18 years of Conservative rule in 1997 provoked at least a whiff of enthusiasm before the inevitable reality of business as usual set in – the business of inequality, exploitation and war under “New” Labour. But who has illusions of great things coming from the contenders for our votes now? What will come from the captains of industry who talk of a green economy, the war-mongers who talk of fairness, or from the petty racists of the ‘far right’ and bickering chieftains of the ‘far left’ who pose as the radical opposition? Most of us know the answer to that all too well, and it shows in our apathy to the whole charade.

Is this grey, cynical weighing up of the least bad all that political activity can be? We think not, and believe us, we don’t want your vote either. Politics has become a dirty word through the grubby pretence our rulers go through every few years of allowing us to choose between Pepsi or Coke flavoured government for the next half a decade. But everyday life is political too, whether we call it that or not. Every day that we go to work through financial necessity, unable to control what we produce, that is political. Every day our taxes are collected and used to wage war is a political issue. Every piece of sexist or racist abuse shouted on a street is political, no less than the advertisements we’re surrounded by, the contents of newspapers, of TV programs, of websites. So much, from the large scale to the small, is pervaded with ideas of power, of control, of exploitation. This is very much political, and so is what we do or don’t do about it. But if everyday life is political, then everyday life is also where politics must be discussed, worked out and sometimes fought over, not separated off into a specialisation, a profession, or an institution.

Limiting politics to the separate realm of elections and institutions serves to turn us into passive consumers of politics rather than active participants, much as we’re supposed to be in the rest of our lives. Under capitalism and democracy we’re seen as individuals with the freedom to choose, whether we’re choosing which car to buy, or which party to vote for in an election, or even whether to go on strike according to the allowed legal procedure. But how much power and influence do we have as individual-freely-choosing citizens in our supermarket society of ‘choices’? If nothing else, the fact that joining campaign groups and charities is popular shows that we mostly know the answer to that question. But if isolated individuals have no power over their own lives, no power to make changes, then the kind of coming together of isolated individuals you get in most campaign groups isn’t much better. Join the group, receive the newsletter, maybe elect the leaders if you’re lucky, and most importantly, don’t forget to pay your dues. Sound familiar? Perhaps it’s time to remember that we can’t change things for the better with a weak imitation of the structures that are busy making things worse.

We only stop being isolated individuals, stop being powerless, when we come together face to face to make decisions and act together. Whether it’s at work, in our communities, or maybe out on the streets to protest, we reinvent politics when we come together as equals and take action over the things that matter to us, and then see who else will come along with us. Instead of waiting for 51 per cent of people to agree to our theoretical plans, we can start by doing.

Creating inspiring examples has a momentum all of its own: blocking a residential street used as a high speed short cut, occupying and running a nursery closed through council cuts, demanding better pay or just more respect at work and then going slow or walking out to get it, setting up a community garden where a supermarket wants to set up, stopping those who try and divide us with race. These are just a few examples around us right now of the kind of politics that can build confidence and collective power, getting results where delegating our power away gets us nothing, a multitude of starting points with the potential to grow and link up. And who knows where that could lead?

If you still feel the need to vote for the least bad option then go ahead. Who knows, maybe it really will be slightly less bad. Just remember that real politics lies elsewhere…

This post came from Last Hours, the original post can be found here. Get ready for MULE’s election special coming soon…

The website, launched today, collates information from across England and Wales. The league table assesses and ranks councils and their partners on their effectiveness at providing affordable housing, and gives detailed breakdowns of each council’s individual performance. It finds that 98 per cent are currently failing to deliver the affordable housing needed in their area, while there are 1.8 million households in England alone on waiting lists. Despite endless press releases and proclamations about regeneration masterplans, Manchester City Council is ranked at 215th out of 323 local authorities.

At last count in April 2009 there were almost 22,723 households on the affordable housing waiting list in Manchester. In order to meet this demand, independent experts say, 2,448 affordable homes need to be built every year. At present the Council has not disclosed how many it intends to build, but over the three-year period analysed by Shelter it had built on average 317 per annum – 13 per cent of the number needed.

Put into perspective, during 2008/9, 2,393 houses were completed in the city. The average of 317 cited by Shelter amounts to only 13 per cent of new build housing being affordable, well below the Council’s own target of 20 per cent as a starting point for new developments. Even if met, Shelter’s research suggests this would still be hugely inadequate.

Of these 2,393 homes just four were built by registered social landlords and none by the Council. However, as MULE reported back in September, the Council are to build 32 new council houses – the first for over 20 years – in Blackley and Charlestown. Work started this week, but new council housing is not part of Council policy. The money was in fact won in a design competition, and 32 houses in a one-off scheme hardly makes a dent in the growing need for social housing.

Shelter’s detailed report shows the average house price in Manchester is around £128,000, below that of England and Wales at £175,000. According to the figures though, this means that new homeowners require an income of £34,783 per year to afford the average home in the area. Median income in Manchester is just £20,160, and in 2007 Save the Children found Manchester Central to be the constituency with the highest level of child poverty in the UK at 54.3 per cent. Even though house prices are relatively low, the average person would have to see their income rise nearly 75 per cent to afford the average home in Manchester.

All this seems to escape Manchester’s political leaders. Housing supremo Councillor Paul Andrews continually denies that there’s a housing crisis in the city. When 98 per cent of councils are failing to deliver the affordable housing needed, and Manchester is 215th on the list, it’s hard not to wonder whether Andrews is in touch with reality.

Meanwhile the city’s high and mighty, like Council CEO Sir Howard Bernstein, New East Manchester chief exec Eddie Smith, Urban Splash chair Tom Bloxham and Bruntwood boss Chris Oglesby, have been in Cannes. There they have been enjoying the annual MIPIM conference, “the world’s premier real estate event”, lauding over how fantastic Manchester’s regeneration schemes are, and trying to persuade investors that there’s nowhere better to put your money than Manchester, with its ever-increasing developments and new partnerships.

After all, if you can’t get property prices rising again, how on Earth would you solve a lack of affordable housing? Once again Manchester’s elite prove themselves unable to grasp the reality of local people’s lives.

Andy Lockhart

Visit Shelter’s Housing League Table here. For more of MULE’s coverage of Manchester’s housing and regeneration issues, see articles here, here, here, and again here.

Alan Gilbert came to Manchester in 2004 to see in the merger between UMIST (University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology) and Victoria University Manchester, creating the University of Manchester. With the ‘2015 Agenda’ Gilbert sought to propel Manchester into the ranks of the world’s elite universities. Yet the self-styled ‘President’ leaves in his wake a controversial legacy. He oversaw the creation of the UK’s biggest university, a massive building programme, job cuts, a push for higher tuition fees, and an increasingly business-oriented approach to higher education.

In his time at Manchester, Gilbert has unapologetically aimed to direct higher education institutions towards the needs of business, to lessen dependency on diminishing government funds. In business speak, this is called “mixed-funding sourcing”. Others call it creeping privatisation. Either way, it led to drastic changes at the University during Gilbert’s reign.

The administration was slow to respond to warnings from staff and students about the declining quality of teaching. Many felt that the 2015 Agenda’s search for high-profile international prestige, together with the lucrative fees from international students, was undermining standards on campus. While popular and acclaimed academics such as Sheila Rowbotham, Terry Eagleton and, more recently, Hillel Steiner felt the swing of management’s axe, celebrity figures like Martin Amis have been brought in at £3,000 per hour for little more than brochure appearances.

Student dissatisfaction made itself felt in April 2008 when hundreds of students marched on campus under the banner Reclaim the Uni, occupying buildings in protest at dwindling contact hours, poor feedback, increased fees, and declining resources.

Gilbert responded that students should be grateful for the University’s research focus, arguing that the prestige it brings makes degrees more economically valuable. For many students and staff, this perfectly reflected Gilbert’s understanding of the role of universities – his unwavering endorsement of the market principle that puts an economic value on everything, including the learning experience. His policies have come at a price.

Manchester slumped to 24th in the Times ‘Good University Guide 2010’, and the Senior Management Team at the University remains worried about the prospect of declining applications.

Gilbert was truly an ideological warrior of the Nineties and Noughties, when the corporate agenda has reigned supreme. His leadership style ranged from authoritative to authoritarian, with things rarely moving until the say-so came from the top. He tended not to budge from his position, most notably when Manchester was one of the few universities in the UK not to give concessions to the upsurge in student protests over the attack in Gaza last year.

Those who knew about Gilbert’s record in Australia saw all this coming. At the University of Melbourne he established the profit-seeking subsidiary Melbourne University Private. The resulting protests in 2001 make Manchester’s seem tame – 70 students forced their way into his office and trashed his study.

Gilbert said he believes the student experience at Manchester “can be considerably improved”. Too true. We wish him a happy retirement, and hope the new VC – Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell, according to insiders – can re-focus the University towards its students, and less towards its business clients.

Estimates imply that there are over 500,000 people living in the UK who have been made destitute by the asylum system. They have no access to benefits or housing and, as they cannot legally work, are often exploited as semi-enslaved labour.

Small Rocks highlights the struggles of people forced to live on the margins of society. It is an important and timely launch.

Entry is free and there will be a buffet provided.

For anyone still under the illusion that the EDL is anything but a group of racist hooligans, ten minutes in Hanley town centre last Saturday afternoon would have been enough to dispel the myth. Less than two hours after the start of the demonstration, before their speakers had even finished rallying the crowd, a mob of over 2,500 EDL supporters surged towards the police lines. Missiles rained down on police and passers by as EDL supporters attempted to reach the 200 or so anti-fascist, counter-demonstrators situated just yards down the road.

At least three police officers were injured during the skirmish and one journalist was taken to hospital after being hit by a brick. I spoke to one EDL member who had been injured by fellow demonstrators after he tried to stop the surge. He told me that they “never expect trouble,” continuing, “this wasn’t what we wanted, we aren’t really a racist organisation.” His words rang hollow against such contradictory scenes.

They could not disguise the fact that, for the weeks building up to the demonstration, websites had been awash with plans for football hooligans from Stoke to link up with others from around the country and cause mayhem. On the day, gangs of between five and fifteen men, many with scarves covering their faces, roamed the streets of Hanley. Their aim was to intimidate members of the public, chanting their hate-filled songs of “Allah, Allah, who the fuck is Allah?”

A Mosque in the Normacot area of the city suffered a graffiti attack on the morning of the march, which set the tone for the rest of the day. Midlands Trade Unions Council regional secretary Cheryl Pidgeon said, “Their claim to be protesting against radical Islam has been shown to be a fraud. As their behaviour in other cities has shown, they quickly descend into exposing their hate for all Muslims.”

Over 500 police officers from five different forces were on hand to deal with the demonstrators and police helicopters circled above. They seemed powerless, however, to prevent the proceedings from escalating out of control. Dave Saxon, protester with the Unite Against Fascism counter-demonstration, questioned the police tactics. “I’m not sure that giving them a pub as their meeting point and holding them there for two hours is the best idea,” he said.

Indeed, several locations around the Regenal Mitchel Weatherspoons pub became flashpoints throughout the afternoon. Police van windows were smashed and six police officers were injured as EDL demonstrators fought with police for over two hours. In total, only seventeen arrests were made and just seven were charged with racially or religiously aggravated disorder offences. Police have said they will study CCTV footage from the day and act accordingly.

As night fell over Stoke, parts of Hanley town centre bore marks of the days events and were littered with debris. The majority of the rubbish had cleared away, however, when they boarded their coaches and returned home.

Click here to see footage from the day.

Image by Robert Trigg of www.staffs.ac.uk/staffslive

MULE covered the EDL before and after their demonstration in Manchester back in October. Afterwards Ruth Michaelson discussed the EDL’s relationship with mainstream society while Ragnor Ironpants looked at their links with the BNP (part 1 and part2).

The event was organised by Friends of the Earth, to provide a question and answer session for residents to grill the government minister before he set off for what is one of the most critical international summits ever held. However, what was billed as a chance for voters to test the strength of the government’s climate policies turned out to be little more than an opportunity to paint a rosy – or should we say green – picture of those at the top.

The event was composed of a panel chaired by John Harris of the Guardian and included Ed Miliband, Sir Richard Leese (leader of Manchester City Council) Mike Child (director of Friends of the Earth) and Len Wardle (chair of The Co-operative Group) – the latter conveniently ‘forgot’ to mention his Labour party membership, let alone his company’s support for them. Although the room was filled with environmental activists, none of the questions seemed to faze either Sir Richard or Miliband, who seemed to have all their answers well prepared before taking to the stage.

In his opening address, Miliband chose to focus on the “maximum ambition” for Copenhagen: in reality, this means the UK agreeing to only a meagre further 6 per cent reduction of carbon emissions by 2020, or an overall 40 per cent cut compared to the current stated target of 34 per cent.

Despite his ministerial remit, he proved strangely evasive on the issue of renewable energy and in particular the closure this summer of the Vestas wind turbine production plant. Following the news of closure of the factory on the Isle of Wight – due to a decrease in orders of turbine blades – workers, supported by environmental activists, staged an occupation of the site in August and demanded that the government intervene by nationalising the plant. Their supporters both in the labour and green movements urged the government to put their money where their mouth was and support a fledgling ‘green economy’. The calls fell on deaf ears.

Mr Miliband continued to speak of ‘clean coal’, despite the fact that coal releases a far higher proportion of harmful emissions per unit produced compared with other conventional forms of energy production and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology remains unproven on a large scale.

In a similar vein Richard Leese (his own musings are on his modestly named ‘Leader’s Blog‘) painted a flattering picture of Manchester as a ‘green city’, focusing on the City Council’s commitment to the 10:10 agreement and other smaller green initiatives. His only mention of Manchester Airport – in which Manchester City Council is the majority shareholder with a 55 per cent stake in its operating company – was that it would be “more green” by “reducing emissions…from things like too much time spent taxiing or circling the airport waiting to land”. Nor was there any reference to the recent controversial move to double the airport’s freight capacity, a decision which not only undermines such claims but has also provoked fury among local residents and environmental activists.

The one issue that united the room and everyone on the panel, with the exception of Miliband, was the problem of the Royal Bank of Scotland’s investment in tar sands. This is widely acknowledged to be the ‘dirtiest’ form of oil extraction and has resulted in the destruction and pollution of traditional lands of many indigenous communities in Canada. The ethical dimension of such an investment is magnified when taking into account that RBS is now a majority publicly-owned company. Effectively this means taxpayers are financing environmental destruction and the government has faced rebuke for not forcing the bank to withdraw funds from such clearly detrimental practices which run contrary to its rhetoric on mitigating climate change.

Len Wardle was quick to admit that as a publicly owned company, RBS is rapidly losing any public support they might have had left by investing in this particularly harmful form of fossil fuel extraction. Miliband remained vague on the matter, arguing that it was “an issue for the Canadian government”.

A focus on individual responsibility, an argument which acted as a get-out-clause for Miliband, was the most common thread throughout the evening.

“Think of the most sceptical person you know, then think of how you’re going to convince that person,” said Miliband. All very well, but what about the investment in new coal power stations? Getting friends to stop using plastic bags doesn’t really seem to compare, somehow.

His own parliamentary voting record certainly shows that he doesn’t take ‘individual responsibility’ that seriously though: he tows the government line at every possible opportunity and his quip that he’s “not allowed to have his own opinion, obviously” is more truth than fiction. And so the constant repetition of the idea that “everyone has to do their part” allowed him, and the rest of the panel, to deflect attention away from the pressure exerted by big businesses on climate change negotiations, instead talking of ways in which members of the audience could do more to get other people involved in the ‘green movement’.

So what was the verdict at the end of the night? Alex Anasi, of Friends of the Earth Manchester, said that Miliband “seemed switched on but there’s a lot of stuff that holds him back”.

Those in power seem perfectly well aware of what needs to be done, as well as the desires of the much touted “silent majority”, but their refusal – or sheer inability – to stop the wheels of the machine from rolling down this steep hill fail to inspire hope. It’s hard to swallow back the old proverb that the road to hell is paved with good intentions…

Ruth Michaelson with contributions by Michael Pooler

Participate in MULE’s ‘WHO RUNS MANCHESTER?’ project – see here

The local business community have been very keen lately to get to know the Tories, as was obvious when the Opposition held their annual party conference here back in October. Manchester seemed a strange choice. The Conservatives aren’t exactly that in touch with life in one of the UK’s poorest cities – ‘urban war’ in Moss Side anyone? Then again, what political party is?

Still, the Chamber has been lapping up the attention. As Deputy Chief Executive and Policy Director, Chris Fletcher, put it: “It was a great opportunity for Chamber members to meet with the minister and make their views known.”

The Shadow Minister was to be quizzed on “how the regulatory burden for business could be reduced”. ‘Red tape’ was the order of the day then, that perennial bogeyman of Conservatives everywhere. Nobody likes waste after all. So Mr Penrose asked the inevitable question: “Wouldn’t it be better to rebound from recession without all that dead weight dragging us down?”

It fits together with the next government’s slash-and-burn approach to the economy, ready to be set in motion after the 2010 election. Public service cuts, easyCouncils and welfare reforms all conform to the age-old Tory policy of giving free reign to the private sector, or at least after we’ve given the banks all our money to pay for their crisis. That was necessary. And of course the military – that needs more public money too.

The Tories’ plans for business and the economy are already pretty much in sync with proposals made by the Chamber. On the ‘Conservative Business Relations’ website, “a forum for allowing leaders of the business community to engage with the Conservative Party and discuss policy issues”, they state their own position clearly:

“Our goal is simple: to make Britain the easiest and best place in the world to set up and grow a business.

“Under Labour, business has become increasingly burdened by corporate taxes, red tape and the lack of enterprise leadership in government.”

“Reducing the burden of regulation to give businesses more freedom and greater flexibility” is crucial for this. The phrase might as well have been pulled straight out of the Chamber’s ‘Action for Business’ or more recent ‘Business Manifesto’.

Mr Penrose laid out his plans for reducing red tape, one of his pet hates it seems, which included government departments being required to cut costs at least equal to new legislation, something he would like to “apply to every quango in the country”.

That may seem sensible enough. He went on to suggest that every year groups like the Chambers of Commerce would be asked to propose the ten least effective business laws, to see if they could be reformed. It sounds a little like asking the powerful business lobby how the law could be changed to make them more money.

And the reaction from the Chamber and its members?

“Much of what was proposed makes sense, and seemed to be welcomed by local businesses. However, the key will be whether the Conservatives can make these proposals a reality if they come into power,” said Chris Fletcher.

The big worry for many in Manchester is that that’s exactly what they’ll do.

Andy Lockhart