novara, who are they? who are you?

Submitted by Picket on October 4, 2013

I'm listening to the novara podcasts and it's very good but I can't get my head round this: who are you? who are you?

snipfool

10 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by snipfool on October 4, 2013

At risk of just stating the obvious... The presenters introduce themselves every episode: Aaron Peters (@aaronjohnpeters) and James Butler (@piercepenniless). I don't know anything else about Novara though, not sure what you mean.

I like the podcasts too though!

Steven.

10 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on October 4, 2013

Do you mean on libcom? They don't really post here. One of them has once or twice under his real name, I don't think the other has at all - they use twitter

Picket

10 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Picket on October 4, 2013

No I know their names but I can't find anything else about them. Maybe they want anonymity, fair enough, but it seems unusual.

TrotskyLover420

10 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by TrotskyLover420 on October 4, 2013

:r: They're a right bunch of bloody muppets, thats who they are. :r:

Picket

10 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Picket on October 4, 2013

Yeah I did google their names. As you note, Jim, there is a result for Aaron but nothing for James.

I have a more public internet profile, and I'm no-one, I don't do podcasts or nuffink :)

Maybe there's more than I could find last night, I possibly was not in the "right frame of mind" for a thorough web search.

snipfool

10 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by snipfool on October 4, 2013

I might be creating some kinda infinite internet loop by putting this here but... https://twitter.com/aaronjohnpeters/status/386137239555543041

Picket

10 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Picket on October 4, 2013

Haha :)

The mysterious Peters is now being followed, I will have my answers!

Joseph Kay

10 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on October 4, 2013

Aaron Peters is usually topless, James Butler is usually drunk.

Picket

10 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Picket on October 4, 2013

I'm glad my stereotyped imaginings have been proven correct :)

sabot

10 years ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by sabot on March 25, 2014

What the hell happened to Novara?[youtube]VPczzHS7QVA[/youtube]

snipfool

10 years ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by snipfool on March 25, 2014

sabot

What the hell happened to Novara?[youtube]VPczzHS7QVA[/youtube]

Do you mean how did their radio show get so boring?

edit: whoops, https libcom doesn't show embedded youtube so i didn't see the vid at first, just your question.

yeah, i echo that! i find their recent coverage uninteresting to say the least.

Spikymike

8 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Spikymike on May 5, 2015

Ok so although I have read a couple of interesting pieces by James Butler on this site, and commented on one of them, I never got round to following the podcasts which have been linked from time to time and I'm still wondering what the duo's political underpinning is after picking up a friendly (despite the title) but critical reference to novara media here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2015/no-1329-may-2015/pathfinders-keep-it-simple-stupid
The overal approach behind the media project reminded me a bit of the way that 'Plan C' operate but otherwise I'm none the wiser really?

Joseph Kay

8 years 11 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Joseph Kay on May 5, 2015

They don't have a manifesto or anything. Listening to the show is probably the best bet, some episodes have focussed more on 'what is to be done?' type questions:

Spikymike

8 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Spikymike on May 5, 2015

Thanks Joseph - listened to the whole of that and whilst there were some interesting questions and thoughts buried in it I was left wondering what might be the useful conclusion. Referring back to the spgb article I would have to concur with the comment ''....and five minutes of their quickfire patter is enough to make your head spin.'' Not sure I want to become a regular listener to their programme to work out any useful conclusions - Think I prefer the written word to be able to reflect and comment on/ respond to.

Shorty

8 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Shorty on May 6, 2015

http://wire.novaramedia.com/2015/05/4-reasons-working-class-radicals-should-vote-labour-on-7-may/

:(

Jason Cortez

8 years 10 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Jason Cortez on May 6, 2015

This sort of captures their positions
http://novaramedia.com/2014/10/voting-elections-do-they-matter/

fingers malone

7 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by fingers malone on October 8, 2016

I do, usually when I'm doing housework

wojtek

7 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by wojtek on October 9, 2016

They should do an audio version of the iww's recomposition series and less material about Labour.

Cooked

7 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Cooked on October 9, 2016

I occasionally do but I always found their style to close to political-commentary-as-usual and was not surprised when they went all Labour. I often wonder if the *style* of analysis can be used as an early sign of someones actual politics or if the style of analysis changes ones politics.

I do believe nerding out changes ones thought processes. Political nerdery and current affairs commenting is to much of a ssport with established rules. Eventually people can't see beyond the edge of the pitch and the rules of the game becomes the only reality.

I've seen it before when podcasts/writers become more and more mainstream as the sink deeper into their roles as journalists or commentators.

jesuithitsquad

7 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jesuithitsquad on October 9, 2016

Cooked

I occasionally do but I always found their style to close to political-commentary-as-usual and was not surprised when they went all Labour. I often wonder if the *style* of analysis can be used as an early sign of someones actual politics or
I do believe nerding out changes ones thought processes. Political nerdery and current affairs commenting is to much of a ssport with established rules. Eventually people can't see beyond the edge of the pitch and the rules of the game becomes the only reality.

I've seen it before when podcasts/writers become more and more mainstream as the sink deeper into their roles as journalists or commentators.

Respectfully, I disagree with your point about bourgeois political nerdery inherently leading to an acceptance of bourgeois politics. I geek out on the stuff, and it's partially because it allows me to be able to, with varying degrees of accuracy, predict what's to come. Of course, many of the ways in which the macro impacts my day to day life doesn't vary much, regardless of what happens in the political sphere, but occassionally it does, and in those cases, it's nice to know what to expect.

Additionally, and more importantly, I've found that being able to speak knowledgeably about mainstream politics with friends and coworkers gives me more credibility when I talk about anti-Politics. Understanding arcane rules and processes allows me to effectively demonstrate how things like re-districting to eliminate gerrymandering, term-limits, campaign finance reform, an increase in proportional representation, or whatever other reform is the latest craze will do absolutely nothing to change the structural role of bourgeois 'democracy," and allows me to demonstrate how we have absolutely no control over the most important aspects of our day-to-day lives.

And while we are all blind to our own weaknesses, I don't believe it's put me on a path to selling out my communist principles. In fact, watching the consistent ineptitude of "progressives" to ever implement even a modicum of positive change, I'd say it actually reinforces the dead-end nature of electoral politics. I'm not disputing you've seen a correlation, but correlation doesn't automatically mean causation, obviously.

Cooked

7 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Cooked on October 10, 2016

jesuithitsquad

Respectfully, I disagree with your point about bourgeois political nerdery inherently leading to an acceptance of bourgeois politics. ...

Additionally, and more importantly, I've found that being able to speak knowledgeably about mainstream politics with friends and coworkers gives me more credibility when I talk about anti-Politics. ...

And while we are all blind to our own weaknesses, I don't believe it's put me on a path to selling out my communist principles.

Well you are on the path just you wait! Soon you'll be getting more and more involved in writing and podcasting. Before you know it you'll have a weekly spot somewhere an then BAM. Vote Hillary! (critically) ;)

Joking aside I did mention sinking into a role as a "radical" journalist being a part of the process. And yes knowing teh system is useful in conversations with co workers. I would certainly have use for it. It's endless though... and my patience not there since reading about party politics pisses me off. This is despite having a job quite sensitive to political changes.

jesuithitsquad

7 years 5 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by jesuithitsquad on October 11, 2016

:)

This is despite having a job quite sensitive to political changes.

that can be very nerve-wrecking. i do not envy you one bit. i've been there before, and hope to never be again!

wojtek

7 years ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by wojtek on March 15, 2017

If you want to be 'intersectional', you can't only talk about 'whiteness' right?

radicalgraffiti

7 years ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by radicalgraffiti on March 15, 2017

wojtek

If you want to be 'intersectional', you can't only talk about 'whiteness' right?

this is the first mention of "whiteness" in the thread

wojtek

7 years ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by wojtek on March 16, 2017

I know. Novara published some stuff about the 'unbearable whiteness' of brexit, but nothing exploring why other communites, eg. south asians also voted leave.
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/why-did-south-asians-vote-for-brexit

fingers malone

7 years ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by fingers malone on March 16, 2017

I don't think Asian people voted as a majority for leave though?

fingers malone

7 years ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by fingers malone on March 16, 2017

From BBC website
"There are numerous wards towards the bottom left of the graph where electorates with lower educational qualifications nevertheless produced low Leave and high Remain votes. This is where the link between low qualifications and Leave voting breaks down.
It turns out that these exceptional wards have high ethnic minority populations, particularly in Birmingham and Haringey in north London.
In contrast, there are virtually no dramatic outliers on the other side of the line, where comparatively highly educated populations voted Leave. Only one point on the graph stands out - this is Osterley and Spring Grove in Hounslow, west London, a mainly ethnic minority ward which had a Leave vote of 63%. While this figure does include some postal votes, they are not nearly enough to explain away this unusual outcome.
In fact, in Ealing and Hounslow, west London boroughs with many voters of Asian origin, the ethnic correlation was in the other direction to the national picture: a higher number of Asian voters was associated with a higher Leave vote."

Ok so it looks like, unsurprisingly, the Asian community holds politically diverse opinions

Steven.

7 years ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on March 16, 2017

Although fingers, that could just mean not that more Asian people voted Leave, but that more white people in areas with large Asian populations voted Leave.

I don't think that whiteness is the most useful category in terms of analysing Brexit - especially as the people who will be mostly affected are the mostly white EU citizens. However I don't really think it's a big deal as that word was just used to make a catchy headline. And I think a lot of white people get overly sensitive if anyone says anything about white people

Mike Harman

7 years ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Mike Harman on March 16, 2017

Although fingers, that could just mean not that more Asian people voted Leave, but that more white people in areas with large Asian populations voted Leave.

I don't think that whiteness is the most useful category in terms of analysing Brexit - especially as the people who will be mostly affected are the mostly white EU citizens.

There's a couple of things here though:

- how many people voting explicitly to reduce immigration properly understood that this only meant migration of EU citizens. There was the Breaking Point poster, that voxpop after the vote with the bloke who said it was to "keep the muslims out, don't mind Europeans", speculation about Turkey joining, articles about hundreds of thousands of Roma coming to the UK. A lot of people link Schengen to movement of refugees between EU countries and similar.

- if you look at the context of "whiteness" this itself has been socially constructed in the same way any race has been, and its had a fluid meaning. You could look at the position of Irish, Spanish, Italian immigrants in the US over the past couple of centuries the extent to which they became "white" was to at least some extent a co-option to prevent unity between black americans and recent migrants to the US. (I have the "invention of the white race" book sitting waiting to be read, apparently it covers this process well).

- there's a lot of anecdotal evidence about Asian voters and Brexit indicating it was based on promises of more immigration from the commonwealth compared to the EU. Clearly that's not going to happen but it's a different motivation to just reducing immigration overall. I don't think this should be ignored, but nor does it nead a 'what about'.

If you read Sivanandan (https://libcom.org/library/catching-history-wing-ambalavaner-sivanandan) , he specifically talks about Labour's 1968 immigration act which shut down most immigration from non-white commonwealth countries, especially Kenyan asians who had British passports but became essentially stateless. This was almost at exactly the same time as the UK was preparing to join the EU/EEC. So EU membership in the first place, was in large part to replace black and asian immigrants from the commonwealth with white immigrants from Europe.

Until 2005, Labour had been reserving most of their anti-migrant rhetoric (mostly deployed in relation to failures in schools or benefit cuts cf. David Blunkett's 'swamped' comment) for asylum seekers. While there's still plenty of anti-refugee rhetoric, the Conservative 2005 election campaign made a conscious shift to "It's not racist to want controls on immigration" to turn sentiment against EU migrants.

It's also worth mentioning that the Remain campaign was doing all of this as well. They also wanted more restrictions on migration within the EU, they just didn't want to risk losing free market membership to get it.

So if you accept a definition of "whiteness" as a social category, based as much on culture/legal status as skin colour, then you also start to see people on the left of Labour like Paul Mason start to talk about 'cultural anxiety' about immigration from the EU (Polish shops, polish aisles in supermarkets etc.), not just 'legitimate economic concerns'. For me it feels like this has shifted relatively fast since about 2013/14.

On Novara generally, I get really confused by their politics, but I think it's because the main people involved have quite clear disagreements politically, along with as others have said on here the format being very 'topical' most of the time, which tends towards getting caught up in the news cycle and electoral politics. It's also as much a question of what their own politics are compared to who they think it's OK to have on the show (and how much they get challenged once on).

Also while the actual legalities of Brexit will mostly affect EU citizens and they'll be mostly white, I don't think it holds that this is the only target of it. Whatever happens at this point, the legal status of people from other EU countries in the UK is going to be significantly curtailed, and the government has been rolling out enforcement measures for some time now (upfront NHS charges, nurses expected to check passports before giving care, 'right to rent' checks for housing, the beginnings of attacks on universal education via nationality data in the schools census).

This is going to affect any immigrant to the UK regardless of where they're from, and additionally we're already seeing British citizens getting caught up in it because they "don't look British". A deaf woman nearly got refused treatment at hospital this month because nurses didn't believe she was English (native american parents but born in the UK).

All of this to me is going to end up as or more of an impact than the specific legal status of EU migrants in the next 2-3 years, even if the latter is the only thing that'll be concretely linked to 'Brexit' as such.

Steven.

7 years ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on March 16, 2017

Good post Mike, I agree with a lot of what you say.

I also agree about "whiteness" in the US context. As you say, historically Italians and Jews, for example weren't seen as "white", but subsequently they now are (with the exception of in prison, where many Jews have become not "white" again". That same process is now happening to some extent to Latinxs.

However the UK has a very different history, and "whiteness" doesn't exist in the same way - in Northern Ireland for example.

And while a lot (or even most) of the anti-immigrant sentiment in the Brexit vote was just simple racism, I don't think it's deniable that there was a significant current of it, particularly in some areas like amongst self-employed construction workers - where animosity to low paid Eastern European white workers wasn't a significant factor

wojtek

6 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by wojtek on July 13, 2017

I'm a dick.

Craftwork

6 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Craftwork on July 13, 2017

Bastani now says he supports a progressive migration policy:

Steven.

6 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on July 14, 2017

Any clue as to what a "progressive migration policy" looks like? We can't ask him as he has blocked the libcom Twitter account, as well it seems as the accounts of just about anyone who has ever asked him a difficult question

potrokin

6 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by potrokin on July 29, 2017

I have heard that there is a boycott of Novara going on. Does anyone know the reason for this? I don't know the details.

radicalgraffiti

6 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by radicalgraffiti on July 29, 2017

potrokin

I have heard that there is a boycott of Novara going on. Does anyone know the reason for this? I don't know the details.

the boycott was started after Aaron Bastani appeared on George Galloway's radio show. People objected to this because George Galloway has described rape as "bad sexual etiquette", and denied that it was rape.

that wouldn't be enough for people to call for a boycott normally but novara has several times hosted content by or done interviews with people where are rape apologists, or abusers. so when bastani said "sorry i didn't know" noone really thought he was taking things seriously or that novara wasn't going to carry on as before in this regard, especially since he has previously mentioned that galloway was no platformed *via
so #BoycottNovara was started by some who is a survive and is sick of the left not dealing wit this shit
about a week after this Bastani made this apology statement and then Novara relised a complaints procedure and a code of conduct
and that would most likely have been the end of it except novara people posted pictures of Bastani and James Butler wearing tshirts with "problematic" stickers on them, which came across as mocking survives, and Bastani made a facebook post complaining about how unfairly a group of saboteurs called the Bloomsbury 10, or B10, had been treated. B10 sabotaged a accountability process against a serial abuser, some infor about that in this thread by the person who initiated the process

so noone is calling for a boycot right now, but its hard to belive that novara actually wants to deal with this shit.

potrokin

6 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by potrokin on July 29, 2017

radicalgraffiti

potrokin

I have heard that there is a boycott of Novara going on. Does anyone know the reason for this? I don't know the details.

the boycott was started after Aaron Bastani appeared on George Galloway's radio show. People objected to this because George Galloway has described rape as "bad sexual etiquette", and denied that it was rape.

that wouldn't be enough for people to call for a boycott normally but novara has several times hosted content by or done interviews with people where are rape apologists, or abusers. so when bastani said "sorry i didn't know" noone really thought he was taking things seriously or that novara wasn't going to carry on as before in this regard, especially since he has previously mentioned that galloway was no platformed *via
so #BoycottNovara was started by some who is a survive and is sick of the left not dealing wit this shit
about a week after this Bastani made this apology statement and then Novara relised a complaints procedure and a code of conduct
and that would most likely have been the end of it except novara people posted pictures of Bastani and James Butler wearing tshirts with "problematic" stickers on them, which came across as mocking survives, and Bastani made a facebook post complaining about how unfairly a group of saboteurs called the Bloomsbury 10, or B10, had been treated. B10 sabotaged a accountability process against a serial abuser, some infor about that in this thread by the person who initiated the process

so noone is calling for a boycot right now, but its hard to belive that novara actually wants to deal with this shit.

Well that is certainly enough of an explanation. Truly disgusting.

potrokin

6 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by potrokin on July 29, 2017

I really don't know what else to say- thats just apalling.