Is the New Statesman Compromised?
The old New Statesman historically was the discussion journal of the Labour party. Issues and personalities of the left were analysed within its pages and it still has serious journalists holed up at its offices. Yet compare the vitality of the Spectator to that of the Statesman, all shades of conservative and other strands of thought appear in the Speccie. But search for anything critical of Brown in the Statesman and you will find little.
Improved as it has been under Kampfner's editing it still lacks something because the hand of Geoffrey Robinson is suffocating it. He is prone to wandering up to writers post publication and congratulating them with the line "Gordon liked your piece". As if any self respecting serious writer on the left would care.
The whole issue of Robinson's ownership and his total devotion to the Brown cause depresses staff. The embarrassment of being known as the Brownite house magazine with the symbiotic "independent charitable non-partisan think-tank" - which just so happens to have moved offices three times with them in the last ten years (can you guess who?) - makes staff blush.
Guido was filming outside their offices recently when Kampfner came out, "What are you up to?" he asked of us. "We're doing a piece on the Smith Institute, care to comment?" "Oh no", he said and walked off. What kind of state of affairs is it when the editor of the liberal left's house journal won't discuss the question of the independence and integrity of his magazine? It shares offices with a controversial think-tank under investigation by the Charity Commission for dubious practises involving the future leader of the Labour party. Every newspaper in the country is covering the story and the New Statesman ignores the elephant literally in the same room as it. Not a single story about the Smith Institute has appeared in the magazine with which it shares offices. Bizarre.
Nick Cohen, a New Statesman journalist, has a bestselling book out, What's Left? How Liberals Lost Their Way. Guido can't help but wonder if part of the answer can't be found in the silence and timidity of the left's leading journal when it comes to discussing what is going on under its own roof.
UPDATE : Guardian's Greenslade challenges Kampfner, Martin Bright tries a Sith mind trick, "these are not the stories you are looking for, you can go about your business..."
Improved as it has been under Kampfner's editing it still lacks something because the hand of Geoffrey Robinson is suffocating it. He is prone to wandering up to writers post publication and congratulating them with the line "Gordon liked your piece". As if any self respecting serious writer on the left would care.
The whole issue of Robinson's ownership and his total devotion to the Brown cause depresses staff. The embarrassment of being known as the Brownite house magazine with the symbiotic "independent charitable non-partisan think-tank" - which just so happens to have moved offices three times with them in the last ten years (can you guess who?) - makes staff blush.
Guido was filming outside their offices recently when Kampfner came out, "What are you up to?" he asked of us. "We're doing a piece on the Smith Institute, care to comment?" "Oh no", he said and walked off. What kind of state of affairs is it when the editor of the liberal left's house journal won't discuss the question of the independence and integrity of his magazine? It shares offices with a controversial think-tank under investigation by the Charity Commission for dubious practises involving the future leader of the Labour party. Every newspaper in the country is covering the story and the New Statesman ignores the elephant literally in the same room as it. Not a single story about the Smith Institute has appeared in the magazine with which it shares offices. Bizarre.Nick Cohen, a New Statesman journalist, has a bestselling book out, What's Left? How Liberals Lost Their Way. Guido can't help but wonder if part of the answer can't be found in the silence and timidity of the left's leading journal when it comes to discussing what is going on under its own roof.
UPDATE : Guardian's Greenslade challenges Kampfner, Martin Bright tries a Sith mind trick, "these are not the stories you are looking for, you can go about your business..."
58 comments:
Save for 'Thatcher, Thatcher, Milk Snatcher" and variations on this theme, the left has no heft at all. Witness the whinging by the Guardian commentariat about bloggers.
Even the return fire on these pages has been hopelessly. I like to think that the great liberal experiment has now been given its head and it's finally fizzled out. You got your way and see what happened....
Incidentally, GF did you see the quote from the Cameron interview in last week's Obsever Mag?
He quoted Willetts as saying that a 'liberartian is a conservative who hasn't had children...'
Is the New Statesman Compromised?
No. You are though.
It's not just the NS, is it? Losing New Socialist all those years ago left Labour without its most important journal.
I doubt if the NuLab gang care all that much. The idea has always been to get rid of the activists, so losing journals - or turning them into house magazines - probably makes a sort of sense.
I bought the New Statesman for the first time ever a few days ago, because it had some stuff about Shias and Sunnis on the cover. Well, that article was interesting enough, but then I made the mistake of reading other columns, leading to me reading the feminist comment piece, which has not yet ceased to make me retch given three days.
I don't like the Speccie though. Champagne for the brain? Expensive fluff. Or has it improved just lately?
You're delving in deep waters, Mr Fawkes. You are upsetting some very powerful people. Remember what happened to David Kelly.
'Vitality of the Spectator' - clearly this is a joke. If anyone has any doubts about the seemingly never ending decline of this once articulate and interesting magazine need only look at the recent front cover photo of Kate Middleton. Clearly the magazine now sees itself as a glossy attachement to the Daily Telegraph - much as their joint owners would like.
Guido, have you seen that that mother fucker jailhouselawyer is trying to smear your reputation as a racist over on his blog? You should also see some of the other insults he's levelled at you.
Over on ConHome he thinks you should be "locked up and the key thrown away". Ha ha hahaha ha ha (ironic laugh)
This bloke is a sick fuck.
Unbalanced, bitter, twisted sick fucking pschyos that have that much of a problem AFTER 35 years in jail, clearly shouldn't have been let out in the 1st place - yet alone given the vote.
How can we put him back there?
I haven't read the New Statesmen for years. Even my friends on the left read The Spectator.
I seem to remember some years ago the NS merged with a truly poisonous weekly called New Society. Ugh! What a combination.
I remember an article by an earnest young social worker on the interesting question of why burglars sometimes crap on your bed. The conclusion (which only a social worker could have reached) was that they don't like to use the lavatory for fear of making a noise when the pull the chain.
Off topic for a moment but I have steam coming out of my ears!!
Did anybody listen to Humphreys interviewing Cameron just now? Pure unadulterated BIAS by the Bliar Broadcasting Corporation.
It as a real disgrace!! Go and listen to it!!
New Statesman == Brown Fanzine
Broadening your fire against the New (for the 1930s) Statesman...
I like it!
Any journalist or policeman reading this should really be investigating Anonymous 8:27 AM. The comment appears to be a death threat. It would be fascinating to see if it could be traced back to a government server, wouldn't it? Unless of course, it's from one of Guido's alleged "sock puppets", in which case, shame on you, Guido.
Either way, I think we should be told.
New Statesman is terrible, but The Spectator's descent into drivel about luxury products has been truly pitiful.
Thomas Nixon Carver said "The trouble with radicals is that they only read radical literature and the trouble with conservatives is that they don't read anything."
But the second part of this aphorism is no longer true. For the last thirty years all the grown-up political thinking has come from the right.
What is it with the left and the word 'New', anyway? New Statesman, New Socialist, New Internationalist, New Left Review, New Politics, even New Society before the Statesman absorbed it...
Is this a Freudian admission on the part of the left that everything they do turns to shit so fast that they have to keep reinventing themselves to distance themselves from their bloody awful record on pretty much everything?
Re anonymong 04:12: Well done; in four words you manage a more eloquent affirmation of the post before yours than almost anything I can imagine.
The Kelly comment gives pause for thought. Is it just hot air or is its anon writer a frightened friend who knows something - or an enemy who knows something? Either way, Fawkes, more power to your elbow. And your lawyer's. (Don't hesitate to pass the hat for help with the legal fees if you need to.)
The New Statesman certainly does not seem to be the only putrid organ in the bloated corpse of Gordon Brown's aspirations.
Following your fine piece on Clifford Chance recently (http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/2007/02/pfi-lawyers-love-sith.html - you no longer allow links to be embedded for some reason), can I ask what link or stranglehold Clifford Chance has with the Smith Institute? I ask only because I notice that the lecture given just last week (8.2.07) by Jenny Watson, of the Equal Opportunities Commission, was convened at Clifford Chance - perchance because of the sudden interest of the ‘free’ usage of Number 11 Downing Street?
Now looking at the list of charities using Number 11 Downing Street (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/7E0/DB/foi_no11_3.pdf - PDF document) as a consequence of the written questions asked (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-02-01a.102754.h ) on 1st February 2007 in the House. How many times have those other charities used Number 11 Downing Street in comparison with, say, The Smith Institute’s usage?
As an afternote I do notice that the John Smith Memorial Trust (also a Number 11 attendee) lists among its trustees one Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell CBE QC MP. Was he a friend of Smith?
Zastrozzi said...
What is it with the left and the word 'New', anyway?
I was thinking the same thing. The left-believe believe they can socially engineer "another world", in the same way that religions offer heaven.
If you wish to play on their field, if you're not "New" your "Old". I prefer the natural-engineered dimension as being a fairer characterisation.
Guido, It's only natural you are feeling the pressure. You've done a good job bringing the Sith into the light, let others finish what you've started, take a booze free holiday in the sun and relax a little - you deserve it.
Guido, if you can trace Anonymous of 8:27AM, do "out" him/her. I'd like to hear what s/he knows about what happened to David Kelly. The official** line is that he committed suicide; this Anonymous appears to know different.
** Not that I believe the official line, not even a bit. "Extraordinary rendition" on behalf of Washington DC is a many-faceted thing.
I dunno if the New Statesman is compromised, but it's certainly boring. At least with the Spectator you have the potential for office affairs to go horribly wrong and make headlines in interesting journals.
Spending too much time with lawyers seems to be addling your brain, do death threats add to the legend? Perhaps a return to gossip and tittle tattle rather than seeing conspiracy at every turn might be more interesting or are you going to be running 9/11 conspiracies next ( maybe you can find a link between No11 and the twin towers ).
Guido,
This is the last bastion of free thought
a Santuary from the dour Thought Police and Control Freaks
They are rattled, because the cannot control us
Why not start by 'Outing' anons who issue alleged death threats- starting with Anon 8:27AM
Indigo - Take a look at Norman Baker's reports on his investigations into this matter. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4780290451650428491 for example
Order-order.com was historically was the discussion journal of the Westminster village. Issues and personalities of the left and right were analysed within its webpages and it still has serious journalists phoning in with leaks. Yet search for anything other than criticism of Brown in Guido's website and you will find little.
Improved as it has been under Fawkes's editing it still lacks something because the hand of David Cameron is suffocating it. He is prone to wandering up to the writer post publication and congratulating him with the line "Gordon disliked your piece". As if any self respecting serious writer would care.
The whole issue of Fawkes's total devotion to the Brown cause depresses readers. The embarrassment of being known as the anti-Brownite house magazine with the symbiotic attacks on the "independent charitable non-partisan think-tank" - (can you guess who?) - makes readers fall asleep.
I didn't read Anon 8:27am as a death threat. It looks to me to be an expression of understandable concern for Guido's welfare. Unnecessary but not hostile.
anonymouse @ 10:28 AM,
The towers looked like an 11.
not me...it makes me laugh
repetetive repetetive,
Whilst I disagree with your point, chiefly in that Guido never claimed to be a non-partisan charity operator as far as I'm aware, that's quite funny.
If the very impressive hat of Gee ...dough does need to be passed round perhaps it could be approriately boxed in a UK charity (likely a co ltd by guarantee).
No Untoward Liberation Alliance Badgering appears to be a currently available name.
Nothing good to write about then?
How about a piece by you, or the spectator, on the 'independent' policy exchange?
About as independent as the Fabian Society, that is...
It's certainly true that the New Statesman is little more than a propaganda sheet for Brown, which is particularly galling when you consider the sort of over-indebted, consumption-addicted society 10 years of a Brown Chancellorship have created.
Have you noticed the surfeit of ads runing throughout the day on TV and radio along the lines of:
"Are you drowning in debt? Then phone ******** and we will help to wipe out 75% or more of what you owe!!"
It's not just the banks who are losing money this way, it's thousands of shopkeepers, tradesmen, and other small businesses who have provided goods and services only to find they receive no payment from the wasters to whom they provided them.
What sort of a sick society is it that attempts to run an economy this way. It is short-termism in the extreme and will end in disaster for which Brown must take a large part of the blame.
To Repetetive repetetive 10.59am - You may find Fawkes's attack on Brown boring, but I and many others don't. I've watched failed University lecturer Bruun tinker, tamper and generally fuck up the UK. Him and his little friends are a nightmare - plain and simple. The sooner his overly ambitious political plan comes off the rails, the better.
He's a typical socialist - all do as I say not do as I do. The man has flogged off UK assets at cut prices (Gold, Qinetic etc) and was very happy to watch the sale of Inland Revenue properties to a company domiciled in an offshore tax haven (Mapeley)
Once Glum Gordon is dealt with, I'm sure Guido will move on to others. Oh, and if Mr Fawkes needs any contributions to a fighting fund I'll cough up.
zastrozzi
In New Labour and its propaganda and press control there are nightmare echoes from the early and mid 20th century, as if there has been a style indulgence in a secretly admired regime, with the arrogant assumption that the rest of us would not notice the similarities and derivations. .
The word 'new' has risen again as a marker for authoritarians, their achievements, and their goals.
I was going to ask our local MP, Yvette Cooper, about her husband's links with the Sith.
But the Kelly factor has somewhat dampened my enthusiasm!
Why has Gordimmo's involvement with NuLabor's cash for peerages scandal, and now the Sith been so under reported in the main stream press?
Has the corruption and duplicity of the poodle so dulled the public's sense of moral outrage?
Anyway keep the good work up Guido.
ps
From past experience (contempt of court) a stay in one of HM's open prisons can be better than Butlins!
Having access to Guido's anon poster records as well as the shadowy national database which links IP to individual I can reveal the names of "Anonymous" from previous posters. While I am
Anon 4:12 - Lord Goldsmith
Anon 8:27 - Wilf Stevenson
Anon 8:33 - "Sir" Michael White
Anon 9:50 - Guido (sock puppet)
Anon 10:58 - Norman Baker (unashamed self-publicity)
Anon 11:15 - Joe Brown, High Wycombe's premier UFO enthusiast
Anon 11:23 - Winston McTaggart, The Grauniad's most "edgy" sub-editor.
Anon 11:25 - David Milliband
I thank you.
The question about David Kelly that has always got me is that he is reported to have bled to death yet when his body was found nobody noticed the blood.
If you spill even a small amount of blood it looks literally like a blood bath. Yet enough blood to lead to his death was lost and no one noticed it?
Peculiar
I read Private Eye and just wish it was more substantial and serious. The spec and NS are too big and thus will be open to manipulation by Nulab to ensure things are spun in the right way or even overlooked completely.
I just wish a real politik Indy paper was out there that I could trust what I read and thats critical, capable and unafraid.
*sigh*
contamination by Gordon is terminal.
IP Records Admin said...
I can reveal the name of "Anonymous" from previous posters.
Anon 11:25 - David Milliband
OK It's a fair cop, you got me bang to rights. But you can't deny it's not true can you?
And I'd make a far better PM than than deranged fuckwit Gordon!
The Right Honourable David Miliband MP
For those who are still blind as to what Gordo is doing, and where his ideas came from.
A review at the time by William Conrad Kessler, on July 15, 1933, and published in The American Economic Review show how Adolf Hitler intended to move forward and finance his new policies.
He wrote: These laws are expressions of the policy of the new national socialistic government in Germany, of the fascistic attempt to combine the benefits of private initiative under liberalism with the protection of the common welfare by the state through socialism and economic planning. But at the same time it should be emphasized that the products of the legislation of previous German governments have not been cast aside with one blow.
Christ Guido, you're dealing with the dregs here. Lost a bit of custom because of your legal issues?
Trumpeter Lanfried said...
"For the last thirty years all the grown-up political thinking has come from the right."
Like what exactly? Compassionate Conservatism? Or is the Conservatives' "bury our head in the sand and hope that nasty Tony Blair goes away" policy what passes for "grown-up political thinking" on the right these days?
P2 said...
"In New Labour and its propaganda and press control there are nightmare echoes from the early and mid 20th century"
Care to elaborate? Or just full of shit? Don't notice the mail or the telegraph being "controlled". Even the Guardian wastes no opportunity in pointing out Government shortcomings... see today for example. And don't carp on about the Sun, there's a dear. They support the winning side, always have done. As soon as the right elects a leader worthy of the name Rupert will be all smiles again.
Free Mind said...
Why not start by 'Outing' anons who issue alleged death threats- starting with Anon 8:27AM
I think its fair to say that if a deep-cover government spy who murdered David Kelly is posting anonymously on here, he isn't going to be scared off coming after you because you added the word "allegedly" to your post. Are you a bit fick?
Callicles said...
I bought the New Statesman for the first time ever a few days ago, because it had some stuff about Shias and Sunnis on the cover.
Clearly a discerning reader. Try "Nuts" or "Zoo" - its got some great "stuff on the cover". Should be right up your alley.
Anon 11.25 said...
What sort of a sick society is it that attempts to run an economy this way. It is short-termism in the extreme
What are we now - 9 years 10 months? How many recessions in that "short term"? How may recessions had the tories managed by then?
And, FWIW, any self respecting lefty reads Prospect and has done for years. Trumpeter Lanfried - have a look, but you'll need a dictionary to help you with the long words and complicated concepts. Like "feminism". And the death of conservatism.
Ta ta chaps!
Nice to see the Nulab Stasi aren't short of things to be getting on with.
Re: Damage_13 said...
I just wish a real politik Indy paper was out there that I could trust what I read and thats critical, capable and unafraid.
You want to start one? I'll devote my time for free :)
ip records admin - Sorry but I (anon 10:58) am not Norman Baker or anything to do with him.
the silence and timidity of the left's leading journal has been broken - this weeks edition has a biting peice against the book and the article.
Maybe you should read it?
Is the New Statesman compromised?
Yes!
If you cannot have an article printed which could be seen as criticism of the next Labour PM in that magazine, then you might as well call it the Brownite mouth piece.
It is hardly a non-Brown organisation devoted to raising journalistic standards and reducing moral poverty in the present media climate.
Instead I would call that a very controlling method of censorship which lowered the standard of debate, and did a disservice to the left leaning media.
Why does the hypocrisy of this stink so much, probable because it is the old story of "do as I say not as I do".
A bath is not porous. Forest floor ius.
"repetetive repetetive,"
If 'IP Records Admin' is correct, and the poster at 11:23 really was Winston McTaggart, sub-editor, perhaps the mis-spelling of REPETITIVE is a sign of why the Grauniad is such an appalling rag - with grammar that would shame a ten year old.
Perhaps the New Stateman should employ him. Afterall, it couldn't get any worse that it is currently.
The 'Spectator' was lots of fun under its previous 2-3 editors, but it's gone right down the pan recently since d'Ancona took over; snobbish luxury product placement, writers like Rod Liddle who can't write (or even think, much), po-faced political wonkery replacing really sharp inside stuff (so like the Tory party itself, then!) Vapid arts coverage (except for theatre reviews: Lloyd Evans as shrewd as ever). Book reviewers aren't as creatively chosen as they used to be - and the new woman who does bits on Covent Garden and classical music in general is unbelievably trite.
So many of the contributors now seem to think it's all about them. Frank n' Boris had the knack of coaxing out the interesting bits.
The Tamzin Lightwater diary of the goings-on at Tory HQ is mildly amusing, but otherwise the edgy sense of fun has gone out of it, and all that's left is SW1 type self-indulgent grumpiness, bores like Taki, and the 'Low Life' chap who now seems to be living it up in Southern Spain - not a bad low life if you can get it. And that unreadably pretentious ballet critic, whose rather fake-looking name I was always convinced must conceal Frank Johnson. (I seem to have been effectively disproved there.)
The magazine now has a thin, formulaic, rather dumbed-down feel these days - it used to take a few days to read, now I'm through it in less than an hour.
I'm cancelling my sub.
I realise this is all of vital relevance to Guido, not. But it is Friday...
Just remember what HM The Queen told Diana.
"There are dark forces at work".
We have been warned.
Re: Damage_13 said...
I just wish a real politik Indy paper was out there that I could trust what I read and thats critical, capable and unafraid.
You want to start one? I'd donate my time for free to something like that
peteblogging,
"Clearly a discerning reader. Try "Nuts" or "Zoo" - its got some great "stuff on the cover". Should be right up your alley."
I mean, I bought the thing because it had that article in it, because I was looking for stuff on that subject. That seems discerning enough? In fairness, I never expected to like it start to finish - I don't like everything on order-order, still read it...
stephen tolkinghorne,
Spelling and gramar are borgoiese and chavanistist.
Oh Guido, I thought you'd know better than to bastardise the work 'liberal' like that.
The New Statesman is not liberal, as you well know. Liberals never lost their way, the socialists just stole the word.
" Even the Guardian wastes no opportunity in pointing out Government shortcomings... see today for example."
Paranoid loser Gordon despises most of this government and Tony especially; the Gordian is, of course, factionally Brownite so how surprising that they should do their master's bidding. Brownites put Brown before party, principle or national interest, which is probably just as well, as he is antipathetic to all three.
What I don't understand aboiut the speccie is where all the mugs who buy the advertising come from. I mean, when was the last time anyone bought a £10k watch as a result of an ad in a political mag? Yet it's there, full page, full colour, almost every week. Is it some sort of money laundering operation?
...but it does still do those lovely retro 'Forget Your Worries...relaxing massage in sumptuous Mayfair surroundings' adverts under the, er, 'HEALTH' section, so Old Toryism from the Shires is obviously not (quite) dead yet.
'Just poppin' up to the London Library to do a bit of research for the family tree, Penelope...'
"What are we now-9 years 10 months? How many recessions in that "short term? How many recessions had the Tories managed by then?"
The economy inherited from the Conservatives by Labour in 1997 was a damn sight healthier than the one inherited from Labour in 1979.
Post a Comment