Slasher Nick's coming! Clegg it!

Less than two months before the election and it's time for Nick Clegg to tell us who his political heroes are. This will really be one in the eye for those who say the Lib Dem leadership is trying to move the party to the right. How foolish they will look when he praises Ghandi or Keir Hardy or Arthur Scargill.

But who to choose, who to choose, who to choose.... hmmm. Madame Thatcher? The politician he most wants to to align himself with is Margaret Thatcher.

But hold on, no, perhaps he's admiring the fact that she was firm in her views but not what she actually did. Oh. No. Actually he "admires" the way she took on "vested interests", otherwise known as the trade unions.

The Spectator reports;

Age, he claims, has taught him the point of Lady Thatcher. And, indeed, he now seems to see her as something of an inspiration.

‘I’m 43 now. I was at university at the height of the Thatcher revolution and I recognise now something I did not at the time: that her victory over a vested interest, the trade unions, was immensely significant. I don’t want to be churlish: that was an immensely important visceral battle for how Britain is governed...

This is what I sometimes don’t understand about the Cameron-Osborne act. A real liberal believes in genuine competition...

‘What I find so striking is that the spirit — dare I say it — of the battle against the dominance of one vested interest, the trade unions, is exactly the same spirit we need now.’

He also brags that not only is he more free market than the Tories he wants to institute more cuts than them too and will not raise tax by one penny in order to offset the hardship those cuts would unleash.

I'm of a different opinion to Mr Clegg. I think I detect a nuance of a hint of a sliver of a difference between us. However, to be fair to the Lib Dems the members are closer to Labour than the Tories and many have good progressive instincts, but they are lumbered with a bungling, cack-handed right wing leadership. Frankly, despite my disagreements with them more generally, they deserve better.

John Lewis Payout to Staff

John Lewis may be a large chain but it's also a workers' coop. I've always wondered exactly how that works and still don't really know.

What was interesting was the news today that John Lewis made a large profit last year, proving that you don't have to be owned by a Mexican billionaire in order to make any money.

Just to nail home the point, that surplus is distributed to all its employees - amounting to a 'bonus' of two months wages. Two months! I bet there are 70,000 happy John Lewis workers right now.

I'm not saying John Lewis, which is 146 years old, is the model for a new society but surely it says something that a little bit of fairness can work out for everyone.

Who is Carlos Slim Helú?

The world's richest man, that's who. I expect he worked jolly hard to earn his $53.5 billion which is... (quick mental calculation) a lot of money.

He essentially owns Mexico and a whole host of companies all over the world, although centered on Latin America. You could be eating a meal provided by Slim, watching a TV show produced by Slim on power provided by one of Slim's energy companies and then interrupted by a call on your phone, provided by Slim and if you had a ring tone of the latest band, hey, their record label could be Slim's too. All whilst sitting in a home built by one of slim's construction companies.

And what do you know it's your boss... who works for Slim.

Glory be to the world's richest man who has laid out his thoughts on business in ten easy to remember thought-bites.

1. Create an organizational structure with simple, minimal hierarchies; provide personal development and in-house training for executives; maintain flexibility and a rapid decision-making capability; leverage the advantages of a small company and use these to grow and excel.
   
2. Maintaining austerity in good times strengthens, profits and accelerates the development of the company, and averts the bitterly drastic adjustments in times of crisis.
   
3. Stay focused on modernization, growth, training, quality, simplification and the continuous improvement of production processes. Increase productivity and competitiveness, reduce costs and expenses by using global benchmarks.
   
4. Companies should never be limited by the size of the owner or manager. Do not be a big fish in a small pond. Minimize investment in non-productive assets.
   
5. There is no challenge that we cannot overcome by working together with clear objectives and knowing the tools we have at our disposal.
   
6. Money that leaves the company evaporates; this is why we reinvest profits.
   
7. Corporate creativity is not only applicable to business, but also to solving many of society’s problems. This is what we do through the Group’s Foundations.
   
8. Firm and patient optimism always yields its rewards.
   
9. All times are good time for those who know how to work and have the tools to do so.
   
10. Our premise is and has always been that we leave with nothing; that we can only do things while we are alive and that businessmen are creators of the wealth they temporarily manage.

I particularly detest number nine. The exploiter's charter.

Disorganised Rage!

I was reading the news that Lewisham is one of the angriest places in London whilst at the same time listening to a debate on the radio about MPs expenses where half the callers didn't even seem to know what they were angry about. They knew *who* they were angry at but when they tried to articulate that anger it all fell apart.

So thinking about anger I do think there is a strong dose of peer pressure involved sometimes. If you take traffic wardens, who are basically a group of people who do a socially useful job and have to deal with often angry members of the public, you'd have thought that society would give them a little bit of status - but no - they are universally vilified as if anti-social parking that can inconvenience large numbers of people was some sort of human right.

However, it's somehow acceptable to see traffic wardens as less than human and that actually makes their job more dangerous because some people take that as the green light to become abusive or worse when they're caught blocking everyone else's way and being a pain.

It got me thinking about the things that make me angry that *aren't* common currency. It didn't take me long to remember that there is one big one.

BAGS.

I have to say that those bloody bags that people trail along behind themselves are becoming more and more annoying as they become more and more common. On the tube sometimes it is nothing less than an obstacle course of these blooming trailers.

They're an obstacle at best and sometimes a positive hazard. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen someone go up the escalator with one of these things and then stop at the top causing the next person to trip over them. Particularly when you get a few people together with these things it becomes a real problem, especially in crowds.

Obviously they are useful if you want to transport lots of things across the capital/world and it's difficult to raise the rage you feel about these objects in polite society because more and more of us are becoming offenders.

So what's your unacceptable hate object/behaviour? I'm sure there are lots of things that make us angry that we all share (racism, injustice, etc) but it's those things that fall between the cracks, that it's hard to come clean about that I'm really interested in.

Asylum seekers should be welcome here

Another tragic reminder of the human cost of our government's policy on refugees and asylum seekers. Three people dead by their own hands because of the unnecessary cruelty and bureaucratic nightmare that they were forced to go through.

I hope their deaths can go some way to moving public opinion to force the government to take a more humane approach towards those seeking shelter and a new home. It doesn't matter which side of any line on a map you were born. People are still people, unless perhaps they work for the Home Office.

One Dimensional Woman

I went to the book launch of Nina Power's One Dimensional Woman at Housmans tonight. Nina spoke alongside Lindsey German (who wrote Material Girls: Women, Men and Work among many other things) on feminism today. Very engaging it was too.

Stupidly I forgot to bring a pen so didn't take notes as there were a few things said that I thought were particularly interesting, but inevitably I've forgotten most of them. However, where I thought Nina's approach was very worthwhile was that she took as her starting point a wider social and economic context.

Any discussion, whether its on childcare, Hillary Clinton or the wearing of the veil can only be abstract and sterile if you separate it from everything else. We can't understand these things on their own but only when we take in the place each issue has in the world at large.

For example, does the fact that Condolezza Rice and Hillary Clinton were able to rise so high in the US government prove that the glass ceiling has vanished and discrimination is at an end? Nina used a rather neat little phrase saying that we shouldn't describe these women as tokens but rather as decoys that act to distract us from the large scale differential between men and women.

I'm tempted by this argument because it's quite true that one version of feminism essentially fights for the improvement of the lot of middle-class women without touching the lives of their nannies and cleaners. I still lean towards more representation for woman on boards, cabinets and top management positions because a) it's fairer, b) whilst women can't reach certain positions it reinforces divisions across the spectrum and c) the struggles are connected, even if some have tried to decouple them.

As a member of the audience pointed out if you simply look at lap dancing, for example, in isolation it really boils down to a purely moral question. However if we don't consider the economic options that many women face and the choices they might make when faced with those options we end up prioritising one kind of oppression over another. Essentially if lap dancing provides a better wage and better conditions it can't be seen as a simple and clear cut example of exploitation but has to be seen in a more nuanced or sophisticated way.

Anyway, it sounds like an excellent book but I don't have time to read at the moment so may never get to find out for myself. Glad I went to the launch though as it provided some excellent food for thought.

Are you listening Australia?

Richard Dawkins, renown atheist and prodigious pedantician, spoke in Melbourne Town Hall last night proselytising the bad news that there is no God.

God's answer? The worst hail storm in one hundred years.


Have they repented? Have they heck - they only seemed worried that the sports have been cancelled.

What is going in UNISON - London?

Was forwarded this by UNISON member MarshaJane on the union's attacks on the left, and thought it was important to pass it on;

DAWN RAIDS AND BANS

The Union showed an even uglier face yesterday morning when a dawn raid was launched on the Greenwich UNISON Office. Not shamed at all by all the evidence that an orchestrated witch hunt has been in effect since June 2007, 6 employed Officials of the Union turned up completely unannounced and took over the office.

When Kaz made the point that the Union acting in this way had deeply upset the office staff he was told "we thought you'd be on your own". Only in the world of the playground bully is 6 verses 1 seen as a fair fight. BUT in fact maybe this is a compliment to Kaz as the Region obviously believes it takes two Senior Officials and 4 "organisers" to replace Kaz.

The Regional Official, Dan Pappiett, had told Kaz on Thursday that he would meet with him next week to do a handover. This was obviously a lie. The officials claim that between Thursday and Friday the situation had changed and that they were instructed by the NEC to take the Branch into administration. No reason was given for the NEC decision, if indeed there was one. Instead, the aim of the raiding party is twofold - Firstly, to send a bullying message but secondly to attempt to uncover evidence to lay further charges, just in case the court cases are successful and also no doubt because the ban was reduced by one year.

On entering the Office, Chris Remington from the Regional Office told Kaz to "disappear sharpish". By midday, the Region had organised the changing of the locks to the office. Most disturbing of all is the obvious collusion with the employer. Two days prior to the raid, Kaz received minutes of a TU Liaison meeting that he had attended. In it, it was minuted that "the Branch would be taken into administration and significant decisions would be taken by the Regional Office ". This was never said at the meeting and was obviously added by the Council following discussion with the Region. The Regional Officers also met with Ray Collingham and Shaun Rafferty (who showed them to the office) yesterday and we are aware that they went to the Town Hall for a meeting which we can only assume was with the Leader and the Chief Exec.

This was a coordinated and vicious action by the Union to the extent that when the office administrator arrived and turned on the Union computer, it turned out that it had been disabled for membership use centrally.

Most disgusting of all is the letter that has gone out to members from the Region stating that the Regions actions are motivated by the interests of the members. The letter says that measures will be introduced to strengthen the Branch - yet members are so disgusted we are only just preventing mass resignations. The letter uses the word "improve" 3 times as though the Branch is not functioning. This was also the mantra from the usurpers in the Branch. What an insult. If so much improvement is needed, how do they explain our results?

But the truth is clear for all to see - by improvement they mean changing the political complexion of the Branch and they want to do this by witch hunts and bullying.

Please do send messages of protest to:

UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis: d.prentis@unison.co.uk

More at Jon's blog.

Katrina victims are suing oil companies

The Telegraph is reporting that some of the victims of Hurricane Katrina are suing companies including Shell, Exxon Mobile, BP, American Electric Power and Chevron because of their role in promoting climate change. The class action suit states;

"The plaintiffs allege that defendants' operation of energy, fossil fuels, and chemical industries in the United States caused the emission of greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming [when they had a duty to] avoid unreasonably endangering the environment, public health, public and private property."

It has taken four years for judges to rule that this case can be heard.

Although I wont be holding my breath that this goes anywhere it does raise an interesting point. This may be a slightly controversial point but I don't blame the oil companies specifically for climate change, when it is in the nature of our economy as a whole.

I worry about the idea of "bad capitalists" who can be brought under control in order to make our economy fair again. Oil companies, banks, arms companies are obviously stuffed to the rafters with people who do bad things for a living - but the solution to the problem of climate change does not lie in punishing miscreants but changing the way we go forward.

Cheer up Tories!

I saw this screen shot over at Richard Osley's blog the other day. Is it just me or does literally no one in the picture look happy to be there? Some of them look positively enraged.

The woman on the left looks like she's weeping in despair. I guess the Tories aren't feeling quite as confident of victory as they were a few months ago.

Cheer up - only nine weeks to go!

Farewell Mr Foot

I've just heard that Michael Foot, ex-Labour Leader, has died. It's sad news indeed as Foot had a large impact on my politics, although not always in a way he may have intended.

Foot was probably responsible for my first ever truly political thought, which was during the Falklands War. I remember watching him on TV attacking Thatcher for not pursuing the war hard enough, for not being patriotic enough and for not putting the boot in hard enough. Even at my tender age (twelve I think) I thought "This is wrong, you're meant to be in CND and against war. This can't be right."

From that day on I described myself as a socialist - although my understanding of that word has certainly developed in the intervening twenty eight years.

The one thing that is likely to come up in the numerous obituaries over the next few days will be the fact that Michael Foot led Labour into their worst poll defeat in sixty years at the 1983 general election. The myth that has gone down in history is that this was due to Labour being 'too left-wing' and their manifesto was the 'longest suicide note in history'.

I think that needs correction as a large part of the 1983 poll defeat was a combination of the patriotic fervour of the Falklands War combined with a Labour Party split the SDP which took millions of votes.

As you can see from the figures the Tories actually lost ground at this election but because of the ridiculous system we use in this country the SDP-Liberal Alliance took a quarter of the votes but only twenty three seats, a tiny fraction of their fair share. However, those votes were largely lost from Labour and it was enough to crush them in Parliament.

Party		Standing	Elected	Gained	Unseated	Net	% of total	%	No.	Net %
	Conservative	633	397	47	10	+ 37	61.1	42.3	13,012,316	- 1.5
	Labour	633	209	4	55	- 51	32.2	27.6	8,456,934	- 9.3
	SDP-Liberal Alliance	633	23	14	0	+ 14	3.5	25.4	7,780,949	+ 11.6

If anything it was the SDP "splitters" combined with the stupid electoral system that created the extent of the defeat of 1983 not Labour's manifesto nor the style of jacket that Foot used to wear.

Anyway, despite his pro-war wobble Michael Foot was someone who helped strengthen the Labour left for many years and those who replaced him were sadly not his equal.

Possibly the best pot hole picture ever!

In local politics there are some issues that come up time and again. No, not the need for an English Parliament or the problems with hypothocated taxation, I am of course talking about dog poo, dumped mattresses and pot holes in the road.

There's a good reason for that, as all these issues have a real and day to day effect upon people's quality of life in a very upfront and obvious way.

The site Glum Councillors has been doing sterling work bringing to the nation's understanding a better understanding of the joy that is councillors trying to look sad as they stand, kneel or sit next to a variety of holes in the road.

However, this picture from the Coventry Telegraph, is possibly the finest example of the genre that I have ever seen.


The situation had got so ridiculous on one road that Kevin Roberts went to the effort of hiring a space suit and recreating the moon landing for his shot in a vain bid to get the council to actually do something about it. Gorgeous!

(with thanks to Joe Rukin for pointing me to this)

Five blogs you really must read

As you know I often highlight blogs that have recently come to my attention, but it niggles in the back of my mind that once I've mentioned you I may well not mention you again for some time - if ever. This is, of course, no reflection of the excellent quality blogging that's going on out there but simply down to time constraints on my part.

None the less link love is the very stuff of the net - it's not a competitive sport but a co-operative one which is what makes it so lovely. With this in mind I thought I'd highlight a few unaffiliated blogs that I find absolutely top notch. I cannot recommend the following too highly;

• Ben's Blog: the only blog of a serving prisoner. Thoughtful, enlightening and funny Ben is doing everyone a real service by lifting the lid on the day to day life of prisoners in this country.
• Liberal Conspiracy: the nation's foremost leftist group blog. In my view Lib Con's editor Sunny has made a phenomenal contribution to left blogging in the UK through this and other projects. Splendid stuff.
• Third Estate: they may not be quite so central to the left's blog armory but interesting, challenging and provocative the Third Estate team have done really well putting together such a strong blogging team. They go from strength to strength - all power to their elbow I say.
  
• Richard Osley: editor of the Camden New Journal, the best local paper I've ever seen, Richard Osley's blog has a very light touch using all the little snippets of info that may well not fit in the paper in a more chatty and friendly style. Excellent mischievous stuff.
• Brockley Central: well, if I'm talking about local blogs it would be unthinkable to leave out South London's finest - Brockley Central. Every area should have a blog like this. An invaluable asset to the community that helps spread local news and info but more importantly provides a hub for discussion about vital local issues.
  

Elections in a time of climate denial

As has been noted over the last couple of weeks there is a considerable effort at the moment to discredit the notion that climate change is happening and that if it is it has nothing to do with the things people are doing.

Niggling over numbers, the difference between climate and weather and the misunderstanding that whilst individual scientists or departments may make mistakes this does not necessarily discredit everything everyone has done in the field to date.

This is dangerous on two levels. Firstly, and most importantly, it moves the debate backwards away from what needs to be done about climate change to whether it is occurring at all. If, as seems likely, the Tories win the next election the climate measures they take may well be shackled by the climate denial wing of the party.

Secondly, and less important in many ways, it means that the Green Party is in a dilemma on the issue. One of the common comments you get on the doorstep is that the Greens are a single issue party. That's clearly not true but if people haven't noticed that we're an anti-war, anti-privatisation radical social democratic party then it's up to us to help get that across.

That means we often don't emphasise environmental issues because everyone knows roughly where we stand on climate change, and the decline of the bee population, to take two random examples. We tend to promote the stuff that has had a less high profile to help counter these misconceptions - that's all well and good.

However, due to the hefty attacks on climate science it is also up to the green movement as a whole and the Green Party as part of that movement to help counter those attacks and move the debate forwards out of the boggy swamps of myopic anti-science denial. It's actually quite difficult to convince people we're not just about the environment and lead the defense of climate science simultaneously and I'm sure we wont be able to get the balance exactly right between these conflicting tasks.

I've written a little series of articles in the Morning Star on climate change over the last few weeks as my small contribution to the debate. Tomorrow's is on how the fight against climate change is also the fight against inequality and injustice and can be seen here. The previous parts of the series on is climate change happening? and addressing the climate deniers I hope hang together in a loose but coherent way.
Anyway, it's going to be increasingly difficult to draw this balance as time goes on because climate change is clearly *not* one of the themes of this election so the Greens (and a few notable others) will have to crow bar the issue up the agenda if we're to make it an election issue.

Even if we're successful in that it's not necessarily going to be a comfortable conversation once we get it there. But try we must, even whilst trying to demonstrate that the Greens are not *only* about climate change - even if it is the most important issue facing the world today.

Italian protests get colourful

The movement against Berlusconi's anti-democratic ways is still going strong with ongoing demonstrations and protests. I noticed in The Times today that part of that movement has branded itself 'The Purple People'.

Berlusconi, like many right-wing populists before him, has taken it on himself to curtail the right of the courts to investigate his crimes, has little to no regard for internal democracy simply appointing cabinet ministers and candidates as he sees fit and has mounted a continued attack on the legal system every time it acts independently of his will.

The latest episode occurred this weekend when "judges in Milan refused to annul a trial in which Mr Berlusconi is accused of bribing David Mills, his former British tax lawyer and the estranged husband of Tessa Jowell, the Olympics Minister".

I was interested by 'Il Popolo Viola' partly because there seems to be a bit of a habit of using colours to define political movements in Italy. The 'Tute Bianche' (all in white) were a strong leftist political current not long ago. In fact both groups used the slogan 'Ya Basta' (Enough) and talk admiringly of their own 'spontaneity'.

We don't tend to use colours this explicitly in politics over here. The only examples that spring to mind are the highly successful, cough, Red Wedge and the Green Party of course. hopefully Purple will work for these protesters and they'll help to destabilise Berlusconi's rotten regime.

Weekending: on the right day and everything

Let me take you on a tour of the blogland, or at least a very limited part of it.

• Reuben at the ever excellent Third Estate takes a look at the egos of independent candidates.
• If Berlusconi ends up with the most women in his cabinet I'm going to be annoyed.
• AVPS points to homeopathies surprising allies.
• Molly asks how green was Marx.
• Modernity looks to the skies.
  
• If you're a London student you may want to support Clare Solomon in her bid to become ULU NUS President.
• Sue is very happy that Lewisham Green Party have opened their new HQ.
  
• I want to wish James, the foremost Scottish Green blogger, luck in his Parliamentary election battle.
  

A couple of events coming up in London, both north and south;

• This Saturday 6th March: Feminism today with Nina Power and Lindsey German at Housmans Bookshop, near Kings Cross, from 5pm.
  
• This Sunday 7th March: Lewisham Peace and Justice event. Right on discussions, food, music, films including a chat from me about climate change. From 4 pm.
  

Spotted this at Suitably Despairing and thought I'd pass it on;

Thoughts on the Falklands

Recently there have been some minor diplomatic ripples over the Falkland Islands / Malvinas between the Argentinian government and the UK. It seems that British companies have been making a nuisance of themselves drilling for oil in these disputed waters and not everyone thinks that this is cricket.

The British government line is that the Falkland Islanders want to be British and so they shall be. It is simply a coincidence that they are parked on top of the most valuable resource in the world, but as they are that's ours too.

Falklands oil is culturally British and the most patriotic oil you might be able to imagine. So we'll set up our oil rigs where we like.

However, I have a compromise position that is bound to please everyone. The Falkland Islanders want to be British? Well, that's fine, they can stay that way - self determination and all that. Argentina can have the oil - which has no views on what nation should own it and is geographically far closer to them than us. That's fair isn't it?

After all the British government only cares about the rights of the people - every statement they make is on that very subject, and they skirt meticulously round the subject of the black greasy stuff - the only conclusion I can draw is that this is an issue they care nothing about.

The Banks Are Made of Marble

The Bully Beef: why these attacks were misjudged

On a purely clinical level bullying was as strong issue for Labour's opponents to try to tap into. Workplace bullying is a real social problem and one that many people will have witnessed if not experienced direct.

Not only is it clearly a 'bad' thing, it also feeds off the CCTV, ASBO, war of terror character of Labour's long years in power. Brown has pushed the people around, bullied Iraq with bombs and had a tendency to use legislation and force rather than diplomacy and persuasion.

However, on a purely anecdotal level the whole episode has failed to land a glove on the government for a whole raft of reasons. Firstly it's a personal attack on Brown. People don't like that, true, but more importantly when I talk to people who are going to vote Labour they never mention Brown. It isn't about re-electing *him* it's about using Labour as a shield against the Tories.

Second, quite a few people feel that Brown is a victim of bullying, so a load of headlines going for him can have a kind of Jade Goody effect of pushing people to defend him. I don't actually subscribe to that view, but I've met a couple of people who clearly feel that.

Third, and most damagingly, the way in which it was handled was so inept that it was difficult *not* to see it as a dirty tricks campaign as part of the election - which disarms the issue entirely.

When someone discredits their organisation breaking confidences like that it's a terrible thing to do, especially in order to make a cheap political shot. What Christine Pratt (pictured), National Bullying Helpline chief, has done is to destroy the reputation of her organisation and herself as well as undermining the confidence of anyone who wants to use *any* confidential service.

She's also clearly a dishonest idiot. Hopefully a soon to be unemployed one.

By using this kind of information in a clearly party partisan fashion she undermined any damage that had been done to Brown. She also turned the story from one about bullying, an issue that she is presumably passionate about, into one about confidentiality, an issue she clearly has less strong feelings on.

Gender equality

It's one of those stories that I read without even knowing why I'm reading it. apparently Geena Davis, the Oscar winning actress, is launching a campaign to address the way women are treated in the media. Very worthy and I definately applaud this.

She chose the UN Secretary General and the Duchess of York to accompany her on this worthy mission. However, Geena's message may have been ever so slightly uncut by Fergie's campaign.

While Geena was actively denouncing the stereo-typing of women in the media Fergie was enthusiastically embracing the same.

Duchess of York Sarah Ferguson, who is divorced from Britain's Prince Andrew, said the key to equality is "good mothering" because mothers promote education.

She announced a new initiative called The Mother's Army to "harness the collective power of mothers" to enable women and girls to "dare to dream".

I'm not entirely convinced the best way to attack one stereotype is by promoting another. Oh well.

Green Party conference: Animals, science and health

For those who've been following these things there has been an ongoing "re-evaluation" of Green Party policy around scientific evidence. This came about mainly due to a few journalists helpfully letting us know that there was some deeply dodgy stuff in policy. It certainly came as a shock to many of us who had not thoroughly read our voluminous policy documents.

This conference saw the first swath of re-orientating our policy on a more science friendly footing. As one of the Party members who've been quite heavily involved in trying to change party policy the experience has been instructive and, I think because we were friendly and open minded in our approach - taking our time rather than just trying to crush anyone who looked like they were in opposition to us, the whole process has been quite effective.

I've already mentioned this but conference started well, as conference passed the motion on abolition of the science pledge. A policy so offensive to scientists and 'technologists' that it makes me wince just to think of it. Anyway, it's gone. Hurray.

This was quickly followed by the passing of the science chapter enabling motion which means that the party has officially endorsed a review and rewrite of our entire science and technology section of the PSS, our core policy document. That's going to take some hard work and we'll be looking for people both inside and outside of the party to help us with that process.

Health

However, some of the key problem areas were in the health chapter which is why a review of this section was prioritised and we voted on this new document on Saturday and this morning. There were a whole number of improvements made and it's to the great credit of the health group that these went through relatively smoothly.

Many of the amendments to policy were on subjects like patient empowerment, the way private medicine feeds off the NHS and breast feeding but I'll stick to the science stuff for the time being.

The headlines in this are that we state that we "will not make judgements on individual treatments or medicines" as that is the job of regulators and scientists which replaced a very specific and somewhat rigid list of treatments we, apparently, like in favour of others.

In HE312 we have removed the idea that health research will have a "particular emphasis" on "holistic treatments" and "complementary therapies". We removed the statement that "vivisection is of questionable value and incompatible with ecological philosophy" replacing it with a section calling for "a thorough evaluation of animal tests" which seems difficult to disagree with as it happens already.

In HE314 we previously had the difficult situation where we appeared to state that alternative therapies did not require the same kind of regulation as more conventional medicines. Conference amended this to ensure that all medicines are properly regulated and subjected to the same controls "based on the best clinical evidence available". We also deleted a long section on "natural medicines", whatever they might be.

Importantly HE315 now states that "We recognize that the assessment of treatments... should be driven by clinical need rather than either political or commercial influence."

Bizarrely, we did have a policy that opposed some stem cell research (but not using adult stem cells) and appeared to be, and maybe even was, the sort of thing George W. might have approved of. This was also problematic because it clashed with our 100% pro-choice agenda on abortion.

Now the policy reads that we look to the "benefits to humans and other animals from stem cell technologies, using both adult and embryonic cellular material. These benefits include direct medical advances, improved non-animal testing methods for new medical treatments, and the advancement of knowledge." What a relief!

Animals

As a last part of this process this conference we also took a look at the animal rights section and although the motion, C9, that I proposed was not passed the animal experimentation policy has been improved by removing direct reference to "scientific" grounds for opposing animal experimentation and the rather blanket reference to "superior non-animal technologies" which implied all animal tests had an already existing superior alternative that did not involve harm to animals.

However, my ambition to strip out all reference to scientific grounds for opposition to animal testing was not approved by conference. I had hoped to stick to the ethics of animal rights within this section and leave the policy on the utility of animal testing to the health section, which seemed more appropriate, but I think members thought this was a step too far and they wanted policy to reassure them they were objectively right on a moral stance. I'm determined to see the positives of this but secretly I'm gutted at this (single) conference defeat.

The debate itself was conducted in a very friendly way and I'm grateful to those who disagreed with me (us) for the open, honest and political way they debated the issues as sometimes these things can get very fraught.

When push comes to shove the Green Party has made great strides forwards at this conference and the focus is now to pull apart the science policy and make sure it's strong, evidence based and relevant to a campaigning political party that wants to see progressive change. All help much appreciated.

Party Conference: fair is worth fighting for

Now I'm back and conference is over I'll try to knock out a few posts to give a flavour of different themes going on over the last four days. I think it's only reasonable to start with the Greens theme for the election encapsulated in the slogan 'fair is worth fighting for'.

Green Party leader, Caroline Lucas, made a very focused speech to conference on the prospects for victory, geeing everyone up and urging everyone to do their bit in the coming election (you can see some of it here).

I particularly liked this bit though on social inequality;

Inequality And it matters because it is the most vulnerable people who suffer first,and suffer most, from cuts and closures. We see it all around us, every day. Britain under Labour has become a country of inequality.

Those at the top, those with the power and influence, making sure that they get more and more of the cake. And those at the bottom having to make do with just the crumbs. The top 10% in this country now have 100 times more wealth than the bottom 10%. A hundred times.

Nothing - no amount of hard work or talent or commitment - can justify that. Those who have less aren't afraid of hard work.

People in service jobs, working night shifts to keep the country going, put in just as much as the captains of industry. Working with disadvantaged children needs just as much talent as serving privileged clients in private banking. And as to commitment - think of the difference between social workers, struggling with bureaucracy, hammered by the media and often by their own management, and trying to do the best for often difficult clients.

Compare that to the commitment of the bosses of the Royal Bank of Scotland, threatening to walk out if their bonuses were cut back too far. That is Britain today.

Deputy leader Adrian Ramsay's speech the day after was also on the theme of inequality but also trained the focus onto privatisation, PFI and the way market deregulation undermines public services and yet still costs us more.

He praised the Sure Start scheme and warned that the coming period will see the need to mobilise against savage cuts in public services.

This was my personal highlight;

The job market is failing young people and in my county it's hitting hardest. Norfolk has the highest unemployment rate for 18-24 year olds of the whole country. It has the highest number of 18-24 year olds on Job-Seekers Allowance, and the highest number of job losses per head of population against any other county. This is the legacy of Tory and Labour governments. And this is what we need to address.

Those people on the dole, will they be helped under Labour? Today Labour launched their General Election slogan- ‘A Future Fair for All'. How can they be trusted to be fair when bankers are still getting bonuses, yet the recession is still putting thousands of other people out of work?

The people who gambled with our money, who built the house of credit cards that now has crashed, get bailed out, but everyone else picks up the bill. That doesn't sound like Fair for All. That sounds like a banker's ‘Free For All'.

We believe in fighting for fairness- not crossing our fingers and hoping for the best. Our proposals would create a million lasting jobs- not ones dependent on cheap fossil fuels or financial bubbles. We want skilled jobs in public services, renewable energy and low carbon industries. We would nurture small to medium enterprises to encourage domestic manufacturing and local agriculture.

It's this economic inequality that goes to the heart of where we on the left must be going. For instance, when Darren Johnson passionately spoke in favour of the maximum wage (although as comments have pointed out we haven't called it that, but that's what it is) if we're not addressing economic inequality we're not serious about social injustice.

(pics from Barnet Green Party)

Conference catch up

Apologies for lack of blogging - I blame science - but I have been tweeting away and will try to give a very quick round up of a few things before I get to bed.

It was good to hear the London FBU voted last night to financially back the Greens. They donated to Darren Johnson's campaign in previous elections and it's great to see their continued commitment, and I'm sure we'll keep up our commitments to them.

Much of the policy discussion has revolved around science. We're removed the ridiculous science pledge, ordered a complete rewrite of our science and technology chapter and our health policy has now got a far more balanced approach that regulates health treatments so, for example, alternative medicines would have to clearly label their ingredients and prove efficacy to get funding. I don't think we need ask more than that.

Prove it works and we'll use it. Simple.

Then we came to the animal experimentation motions, one of which I moved, which Alisdair blogs about here. Basically we find out tomorrow what the result of that will be. Sigh.

We've passed a really interesting policy on parental leave, and a citizen's pension - firming up our economic equality agenda, which is nice.

My personal triumph is that we've now renamed the Manifesto for a Sustainable Society - our core policy document - to the Policies for a Sustainable Society (PSS), which means we wont be entering into the next election with two manifestos, when in fact one of those is a list of all our policies not a campaigning document written for a specific election.

I have to say I think this makes the whole thing a lot clearer and although it's like chiseling with granite I think our processes, documents and policies are becoming far, far stronger. I think that's because we are taking them more seriously.

I'll try to write some slightly more interesting posts tomorrow about the politics of it all, but I thought you'd appreciate some detail on what we've actually passed. When there are places for me to link to of the passed motions I'll do just that.