Salma Yaqoob on Question Time

December 11, 2009

2–4 minutes

Did your mother ever say to you something along the lines of "it’s your company you’re judged by"? If she’d found out you were spending an evening with former Chief of the British Army’s General Staff General Sir Richard Dannatt GCB, CBE, MC, Bill Rammell (Minister of State for the Armed Forces), William Hague (Tory), Lord Ashdown (jobbing imperial pro-consul), and Piers Morgan (self-publicist) she’d be fully entitled to whack you over the head and send you to bed without any dinner. Not a social worker in the land would raise a finger in your defence. That’s who Salma Yaqoob of the Respect Party found herself sharing a table with on Thursday when she appeared on BBC One’s Question Time from Wooton Basset, the town that’s now famous for grinding to a standstill when the British Army’s dead are borne through it.

A hijab wearing woman in her thirties made quite a contrast to the random selection of pro-imperialist white male pillars of the Establishment who were her co-panelists and that’s setting aside Salma’s record of support for striking workers or the Venezuelan revolution.

Question one was downright peculiar. It floated the notion of using the money raised by taxing bankers’ bonuses to pay more to British troops busily murdering and torturing while on "active service overseas". Dannatt agreed with it. Rammell tried for a bit of crowd pleasing banker bashing that didn’t go down as well as he’d hoped so he sought safety in New Labour multi-agency speak about providing for soldiers’ needs. Morgan plumped for the pub bore "send these bankers to Afghanistan and show them a real day’s work approach" and was warmly applauded for it.

Salma used the opportunity to rip into Labour and described how half of the wounded soldiers in her local hospital had closed their curtains when Gordon Brown went to visit them. Fair point well made. What didn’t really compute with the viewers at chateau Mac Uaid was her rhetorical question which began "why are we betraying the bravery, professionalism and commitment of our troops…" It all made sense with the punchline "by sending them on an ill-conceived and doomed mission?" Sheer silence greeted that, Ashdown droned on about the "military covenant" and the assumption of all the men on the panel was that the British state has a divine right to invade anywhere it fancies. Hague revealed that he’d have wanted Ashdown to get the king of Afghanistan gig just in case anyone wasn’t sure that all these characters agree on the fundamentals. Though Morgan daringly called Tony Blair a liar.

It was when Salma let rip that she got some of the audience on her side by pointing out that in Iraq and Afghanistan many people see the foreign armies as invaders not liberators and highlighted the poor judgement people like Dannatt have consistently demonstrated. Morgan seems to think that he still is in with a chance to win Tosser of The Year 2009 and justified the 35 000 deaths of Afghans.

And that was pretty much it. Copenhagen, Labour’s fiscal proposals or the Tories’ worse ones were not mentioned. The whole discussion swivelled around Iraq and Afghanistan with the male panelists all thinking within a consensus that only Salma challenged while very definitely sticking the boot into Al Qaida and the Taliban. Without her the programme would have been an unwatchable pro-war think tank but she did a good job raising the anti-war flag in the toughest of settings.

38 responses to “Salma Yaqoob on Question Time”

The Friendly Lefty

December 11, 2009 at 9:24 am

Liam: agreed. What was almost worse than the dismal politics – completely of the BBC’s making of course – was the patronising way in which the men treated Salma. I mean, complementing her on how well-spoken she is! She’s a Muslim woman and she can string a sentence together! They seemed truly impressed by the spectacle.

LikeLike

Reply
Prinkipo Exile

December 11, 2009 at 9:33 am

Excellent performance by Salma, but truly bizarre that the Guardian’s review completely ignored it and the audience support for her views, while referring to the male members of the panel and their views. Letters to the editor anyone?

LikeLike

Reply
skidmarx

December 11, 2009 at 10:55 am

I thought it seemed patronising, but the fellow panellists actually praised her for the quality of her argument not how it was put, and you seem to be doing the same here by claiming she did more than she did.
As most people are against the war, it wasn’t a shock that there should be some clapping for the one panellist supporting that position. By not challenging the idea that aQ and the Taliban are the problem she allowed the discussion to be dragged back to modalities.

The mother of a dead soldier complaining about army pay had noticeably more impact.

Get a grip and stop pretending because you want her to be a significant figure in British politics that others will see through the same tinted spectacles. It’s the hero-worship of Galloway all over again, with the addition of the “isn’t it great she’s a Muslim woman”, combined with “isn’t it patronising for others to mention she’s a Muslim woman”.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Liam
  
  December 11, 2009 at 11:29 am
  
  You’d be hard pushed to find hero-worship of George Galloway or anyone else on this site, with the possible exception of Neil Young. The BBC obviously thinks that Salma represents something distinctive and important in British politics or it would not have invited her to speak alongside a spectrum of conventional ruling class opinion in what is fast becoming the spiritual home of the British Army’s casualties.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
ID

December 11, 2009 at 11:39 am

Actually, I thought she fought her corner very well. Given she had been set up by being surrounded by pro-war jingoes, she is to be congratulated for cutting through that and giving expression to the strong anti-war current of opinion in the audience – not to mention among the public. Even some of those opposing her had to acknowledge that she may well speak for a majority of British public opinion on the Afghan war.

And that in turn makes the BBC look bad, given the obvious bias against (majority) antiwar opinion in the selection of the panel. Mind you, what was George Galloway doing implying that Salma would be able to rely on Piers Morgan to back her up?

LikeLike

Reply
Bob

December 11, 2009 at 2:19 pm

Yes, considering she was playing away from home in no uncertain terms, was surrounded by an imperialist cabal that was almost a parody of itself and how she was shut out of the discussion for much of the time, she did very well. Having the last word was also useful.
How does praise for a job being well done, which most of us might find hard to emulate, be suddenly translated into hero worship?
OK, one could say that ‘defence’ of this country might be more akin to soldiers lined up along the cliffs of Dover to repel the Afghan Armada steaming up the English Channel, than the meaning normally given.
And the old chesnut about the chaos that would ensue if we pulled out now was not properly answered, but with only a few minutes there is only so much you can get in.

LikeLike

Reply
skidmarx

December 11, 2009 at 2:35 pm

Liam – the BBC obviously thinks that minor parties with current parliamentary representation should get their leader on at some point, especially after Griffin.

No it isn’t typical of this site. But it was one of the main cards in the Respect split, how Galloway had 80,000 glued to his incomparable socialist oratory on Talksport every week, and how only a fool would think any other course than his was worth walking.[Now of course he’s lost control of production of the show]
Bill Bailey? Ernest Mandel?

ID – I don’t agree. I’m not just saying so, but am giving an honest appraisal of what I saw.
Yes it can be difficult in live debate, but what else was going to happen other than there being lots of pro-war jingoes on the panel?[And Piers Morgan obviously wasn’t on Iraq. I did like Private Eye’s “Not In His Name” article]. Anything she might have said in opposition to the war could be said to cut through, she is hardly to be congratulated for not being as pro-war as the other panellists. What some of those opposing her did was to shift the debate onto the claim that a majority of Afghans support the war, which she never succesfully replied to.
Making her out to be better than she is isn’t going to help make for an accurate analysis of what impact she will have on a wider audience than her convinced supporters.
What’s that about Galloway?

LikeLike

Reply
ger francis

December 11, 2009 at 4:57 pm

Skidmarx must be been listening to a different programme. Rather than duck the claim that AQ and the Taliban are the problem, she specifically said violence was escalating because British troops were not seen as liberators but foreign invaders by a significant section of the Afghan population.

And as for not being able to shift the debate, in case you did not notice, she had five others against her and a chair who reprimanded her for butting in too often. This is a ridiculous criticism.

But even on the issue of Ashdown’s claims about the majority supporting the occupation, I thought she answered it well. The reality is not black and white. Opinion polls show that opinions on the presence of the troops are mixed, while showing the vast majority want peace and a negotiated settlement with the Taliban. She was able to use those facts to make the case that instead of escalating the war, we should be escalating the peace process.
Personally, I think it is a very convincing line that could help put wind back into the sails of the anti-war movement. Most people are with us about the war. They just don’t see any alternative when faced with the charge that if the troops leave Afghanistan will be a haven for the Taliban/AQ, or nuclear armed Pakistan will fall into the hands of some version of AQ, or the people of Afghanistan will be plunged into a bloody civil war. We have very strong counter arguments to all those points. And there is a mass propaganda campaign needed to convey them. What Salma did, in the limited time she had and under very difficult circumstances, was to put down a marker for shifting the way this debate is being framed. It is not ‘hero-worship’ to recongnise that although for some it might well be sectarian bigotry not to.

LikeLike

Reply
andy newman

December 11, 2009 at 6:24 pm

“what is fast becoming the spiritual home of the British Army’s casualties.”

“playing away from home ”

Well Wootton Bassett isn’t Sellyoak, for sure.

But let us be clear. Bassett is an ordinary working class town on the outskirts of Swindon. It is a town with its fair share of trade unionists, and has had more than its fair share of anti-war activists.

Time and again, when asked local people have stressed that they have marked the passing coffins only out of respect for the dead, and not as any political gesture in support of the war. The mayor, and even the local British Legion have said that they don’t want the town to be used as a political football, or as a symbol of support for the war.

Opinion in bassett is no more and no less likely to be in support of the war than anywhere else in britain.

LikeLike

Reply
Winmarie

December 11, 2009 at 10:24 pm

Last night Salma was WONDERFUL.Sharing a platform with all those white PRO-WAR men.How brave, she took my breathe away. She was articulate, warm, patient and thoughtful in the face of rudeness by the chairperson (David D) and the patronization of Piers M and sheer self-righteousness of the others. But she got the last word at the end of the programme and summed up the hypocrisy of them all.
She was an INSPIRATION. Please pass on my warmest admiration to her.
And the programme should also be condemned for its sexism. Only one woman and seated between the TWO Tories at that. And not even to be mentioned in “the Guardian” review today further illustrates this sexism.

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

December 12, 2009 at 8:45 am

Win’s boomerang is right on target this time.
I wouldn’t gush about her quite so effusively though, just in case all my critical faculties got flushed away.
But Salma Yaqoob is a passionate speaker and did a very good job on QT.

Afghanistan has been a graveyard of Imperial ambitions for over a century.
We should build on the growing opposition to the Afghan War as a way to bring down any government which supports it.
The lesson of the past 25 years is that progress in Afghanistan can’t come via foreign occupation.
Ending the occupation, while also assisting the forces of the secular socialist left there as well as in Pakistan and Iran.
is the answer to those like Piers Morgan, who support the war on the basis that the Taleban would let Al Quaeda back in.

LikeLike

Reply
skidmarx

December 12, 2009 at 12:06 pm

Skidmarx must be been listening to a different programme
I was watching the one on the BBC, I don’t know about you.
Rather than duck the claim that AQ and the Taliban are the problem, she specifically said violence was escalating because British troops were not seen as liberators but foreign invaders
Or she did duck the claim,and wanted to shift the debate elsewhere.
she had five others against her and a chair who reprimanded her for butting in too often.
Obviously I did notice, otherwise I wouldn’t have said but what else was going to happen other than there being lots of pro-war jingoes on the panel?
Can’t you read?
As to the chair, he allowed her to speak for much longer than anyone else, and then objected when she wanted to come back in almost straight away, and allowed her the last word.
They just don’t see any alternative when faced with the charge that if the troops leave Afghanistan will be a haven for the Taliban/AQ, or nuclear armed Pakistan will fall into the hands of some version of AQ, or the people of Afghanistan will be plunged into a bloody civil war. We have very strong counter arguments to all those points.
Then making them might have been a good idea.
It is not ‘hero-worship’ to recongnise that although for some it might well be sectarian bigotry not to.
I think it is hero worship to implausibly accentuate the positive and always ignore the negative, which is what you do in relation to your boss and Respect in general. Understandable given that that’s the job you’ve chosen for yourself.
After one of the McCain Obama debates, I made the point (I think at Splinty’s Place) that it is difficult to believe that Americans are seeing the same thing we see. I think the opposite occurs with the leading figures in Respect – their supporters can’t believe that others don’t regard them with the same awe they feel. This again I feel is a legacy of the Respect split, where Ger Francis’ side were positing it as a choice between leaders with enormous charisma and pulling power versus an SWP which lacked similar figures, and so any signs that the Renewal bandwagon might stop rolling had and has to be ignored because it would destroy the case for setting up a rival organisation with the largest group of activists excluded.
And are you accusing me of sectarian bigotry, and if so is that religious or political sectarianism? Either way it’s a pretty small-minded suggestion, and a further sign that you rule out any criticism of her as illegitimate, which isn’t going to help you in the outside world where you don’t set the rules.

LikeLike

Reply
jimjay

December 12, 2009 at 12:12 pm

I thought she was very good in what I saw, although unfortunately I missed the second half.

What particularly impressed me was the way she didn’t try to make the ‘easy’ anti-war argument.

In the week I attended a stwc vigil (in greenwich/lewisham) where an swp petitioning kept insisting on shouting “One hundred dead, isn’t that enough?” Which I found increasingly irritating as he continued throughout the event.

LikeLike

Reply
skidmarx

December 12, 2009 at 1:59 pm

It can be irritating when someone continually shouts at what you thought was a vigil.

LikeLike

Reply
Stuart King

December 12, 2009 at 6:52 pm

“why are we betraying the bravery, professionalism and commitment of our troops” Salma Yaqoob

Are you kidding? Are these the same troops whose record we have known in the occupation of Northern Ireland for the last 40 years. How can you put up with it Liam?

The British army is an imperialist war machine whose speciality is occupation, killing and oppression, in Afghanistan as in Iraq. You’ll all be bleating about “workers in uniform” next and joining the Socialist Party.

Surely we can call for the British troops to get out without becoming cheerleaders and recruiters for the British army?

LikeLike

Reply
Derek Wall

December 12, 2009 at 8:00 pm

Salma did an excellent job.

LikeLike

Reply
andy newman

December 12, 2009 at 10:20 pm

Stuart

“Surely we can call for the British troops to get out without becoming cheerleaders and recruiters for the British army?”

It is a shame that your trot group isn’t in charge of army recruitment, had you been then the britiish armed forces would be down to just 50 people after 30 years of effort.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

December 13, 2009 at 8:24 am

Stuart should Salma ever decide to join Socialist Resistance we will make sure that she reads State and Revolution.

There is a spectrum of views in Respect about all sorts of things, including opinions on the British Army. Andy stands at one end and a range of life experiences, watching TV and theory have inclined me to a less glowing assessment of them. The same range of views can certainly be found in the Labour Party and, if some members I’ve met are typical, in the SWP and SP as well. The difference is that no one is trying to win Respect to a full Marxist understanding of the world.

Salma’s comment about the British Army is one that I disagree with but the real point is that she went to the Army’s civilian heartland and argued well and focefully against imperialist war in front of hundreds of people were disagreed with her and to an audience on national TV. That’s some achievement in my book

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

December 13, 2009 at 4:09 pm

Andy Newman
Its a shame that your Stalinist group isn’t in charge of British army recruitment.
You could have shot all the officers through the back of the head and guaranteed their defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

LikeLike

Reply
andy newman

December 13, 2009 at 9:52 pm

“Its a shame that your Stalinist group isn’t in charge of British army recruitment”

what a sad insult, I am neither a Stalinist, nor in any “group” except Respect.

I have no idea what Bill means by describing me as a”Stalinist” it is seemingly a completely apolitical insult which only means that same as saying he doesn’t like me, it is devoid of any political content.

I am a left social democrat, and only a fool would confuse social democracy with Stalinism.

LikeLike

Reply
Derek Wall

December 13, 2009 at 10:28 pm

Andy don’t worry about Bill, nobody else does.

LikeLike

Reply
tlc

December 13, 2009 at 10:32 pm

But he doesn’t like you Andy. Can you live with that?

But I suppose that since BillJ will prefer that New Labour’s Roger Godsiff wins in Birmingham Hall Green over Salma, I suspect you probably can.

LikeLike

Reply
Kaze no Kae

December 14, 2009 at 12:10 am

“The British army is an imperialist war machine whose speciality is occupation, killing and oppression, in Afghanistan as in Iraq”
The army is, the troops aren’t. By your logic, anyone working in the military-industrial complex is equally complicit in the war machine – and they are, but it’s because that’s the choice that’s available to them, not because they think it’s okay. There’s a difference between acknowledging the hardships soldiers go through and supporting militarism, and you’re disowning a lot of people when you conflate the two. The fact is, soldiers are workers in uniform.

LikeLike

Reply
skidmarx

December 14, 2009 at 4:04 pm

I believe it’s the Marxist view that social democracy and Stalinism are twins, like Swindon is twinned with Disnaeworld.

Soldiers may be workers in uniform, but if they are doing their job they are killing other workers, and if their state is not under existential threat, the soldiers tend to be mercenaries. Rejecting the job they do is not the same as rejecting them as individuals.

LikeLike

Reply
andy newman

December 14, 2009 at 4:19 pm

skidmarx: ” the Marxist view that social democracy and Stalinism are twins”

It is a mistake to confuse Marxism with idiocy

Social democracy and Stalinism are only twins in the same sense that Danny de Vito and Arnold Schwartzenegger are twins.

The problem with this is that in the dysfunctional bubble that Bill J lives in Stalinism may have some specialised meaning where it can be interpreted as anyone who opposes politics of Trotsky, and where everyone from Clem Atllee to harold Wilson is a “Stalinist”.

BUt the Internet is not only read by people who understand Buill J’s lingusitic code, and most people seeing my name associatied With Stalin will assume that it means I support the actual mass murder and policies of Stalin.

What is most reprehensible is that Skidmarx and Bill J hide behing pseudonyms themeselves, whicle libelling me as a named and identifiable individual.

LikeLike

Reply
andy newman

December 14, 2009 at 4:22 pm

Furthmore, associating me with Stalin is something that will be ammunition that can be sued by the right wing in my own union, and in my political practice.

It is thereofre the height fo sectarianism to willfully libel me in such a manner as to set back the left generally, just becasueI I am dismissive of the sordid Trotsky worshiping cult that Bill J is immersed in.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

December 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Andy it is little ironic to accuse someone of sectarianism and then label the PR group as a “sordid Trotsky worshiping cult”

We are very clear- the whole of the left needs rethinking, just because Trotsky said something doesn’t make it right, worship has no place in revolutionary politics.

I’m not sure who Richard Horton is but I can assure you that Bill Jeffieries is a real person (unless he’s got us all hoodwinked!)

As for you being a Stalinist- well I’m more than happy to accept your assurances that you are not but coming out with apolitical and frankly juvenile jibes about Trotsky is not particualrly good way of denying it, surely?

LikeLike

Reply
David Ellis

December 14, 2009 at 5:25 pm

Also Andy, I have no time for the dunderheads of PR, you are much more of a Fabian type as you say, but on another blog recently you described Trotsky as 20% megalamaniacal mass murderer thereby suggesting that all those who accept his analyses and the developments he made to Marxist science (Permanent Revolution, degeneration of Soviet Union to Stalinism, etc.) are supporters of such a thing even though he was never involved in a mass murder of any kind. That can’t be good either can it?

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

December 14, 2009 at 5:27 pm

The name calling stops here. I’ll edit out the bit that I think are against the comments policy later this evening.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

December 14, 2009 at 5:28 pm

Although if there was a reason for people to hide their name e.g. being targeted at work etc. it is not really acdeptable for Andy to ‘out’ them on here but as it happens Bill regualrly publishes artciles under that name on the PR website that BillJ is linked to

As for the issue of troops- we should be for driving a wedge between ordinary soldiers and their officers. The fact that the generals won’t even spend minimal amounts on defending soldiers’ lives shows the contempt with which ordinary soldiers are treated.

We should be for their democratic rights to organisne including refusing to be posted to Afghanistan or other war zones. But this should not spill out into extolling their bravery.

Nor would we support all demands of democratic soldiers’ organisations (bleeive me they are not allowed at the moment!) but we would support their right to exist and try to win soldiers over to refusla to fire on thier class brothers and sisters here or abroad.
We don;t want to see British soldiers dies in Afghanistan that is one reason why we are in favour of immediate withdrawal. But we are also for the democratic self-determination of the Afghan people, for massive aid to the Afghans and the life of an ordinary Afghan is not somehow worth less than a British one.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

December 14, 2009 at 5:29 pm

Sorry our posts crossed over Liam – I am pretty sure I am not name-calling however.

LikeLike

Reply
Kaze no Kae

December 14, 2009 at 8:05 pm

“Rejecting the job they do is not the same as rejecting them as individuals.”
Sorry…that was pretty much the point I was making lol, it seems we’re a little at cross-purposes.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

December 14, 2009 at 10:05 pm

Andy Newman objects to being allied with Stalin. More “Trotskyite snake oil” no doubt. Maybe, maybe not, but either way, not something that usually causes a problem in the ranks of the trade union bureaucracy.

LikeLike

Reply
skidmarx

December 15, 2009 at 6:08 pm

It is a mistake to confuse Marxism with idiocy

I think this the part of the following in quotes may be from Trotsky:
the advanced worker must have no doubt that Stalinism and Social Democracy are “not antipodes, but twins.”
It’s certainly from the Fourth International from 1945:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:mDUsXam5QcYJ:www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/fi/vol06/no07/comintl.htm+trotsky+on+%22stalinism+and+social+democracy%22+twins+fourth+international&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Of course it wouldn’t be shocking for a Stalinist to describe Trotskyism as idiocy.

With Stalin will assume that it means I support the actual mass murder and policies of Stalin.
I made the point when this was being debated at Louis Proyect’s place that:
we see from the comment in the post he even tries to portray Stalin’s Russia as an immense achievement, the only thing he seems to try and disassociate himself from is the millions of dead that he’s a little squeamish about.
The comment referred to is:
the USSR did achieve considerable economic growth and modest improvements in living standards over the course of the 1930s; and even the scale of repression was not experienced by many ordinary people as being any worse than the period following 1917.

UNHELPFULLY PROVOCATIVE REMARKS DELETED – LIAM

LikeLike

Reply
Stuart King

December 15, 2009 at 9:17 pm

Liam says “There is a spectrum of views in Respect about all sorts of things, including opinions on the British Army.”

But isn’t that the problem Liam. Salma Yacoob represents Respect on TV . She declares the members of the British army of occupation in Afghanistan as “brave, courageous” etc. It chimes in with the media campaign about our brave boys being let down, under resourced etc by a weak government. The members of Respect then have to defend her, and everything shifts to the right. It is a worked example of the dangers of coalitionism/populism in politics.

And will an alternative Marxist view of the army ever appear in Respect’s paper? No it wont. So the members will be educated by Salma.

Kaze No Kae wants to separate the troops from the army. Well you cannot, especially in a professional army like the British. All these troops volunteered and perform their roles for British imperialism. A small handful, literally we can count them on one hand, like Joe Glenton protest the army’s role and break discipline – they are indeed the brave and courageous ones.

If we don’t make these points about the army we pander to British imperialism and betray the countless countries that have suffered under its oppression.

LikeLike

Reply
Derek Wall

December 19, 2009 at 6:09 pm

Could Stuart King have done better on Question Time?

The ultra left grouplets are great at telling everyone else how crap they are but in a neo-liberal society in front of a potential very hostile audience with a panel of cheerleaders for war, Salma was impressive and clear.

Criticism is necessary but they real issue is that for the numerous self proclaimed vanguards, only their leadership provides a way forward.

More like gnostic cults that focussed political organisations,….if you ask me.

LikeLike

Reply
Stuart King

December 19, 2009 at 6:43 pm

As I am not a prospective parliamentary candidate, Derek, so I doubt if I would be invited! But I think any Marxist would have to make clear that the British army is not “brave and courageous” but bloody and repressive, even in front of a “hostile audience”. I didn’t expect Salma Yacoob to say that because she is not a Marxist but a radical democrat.

But how about you Derek? As a PPC for Windsor and a self proclaimed Green-Marxist, will you be clear and say that the British army and its soldiers in Afghanistan are certainly not playing a brave and courageous role?

LikeLike

Reply
Kaze no Kae

December 19, 2009 at 8:21 pm

“I didn’t expect Salma Yacoob to say that because she is not a Marxist but a radical democrat”
Marx was a radical democrat too. Are you opposed to democracy, Stuart? Sorry, but that statement was just plain disturbing.

LikeLike

Reply