Free Will

I recently discovered a brilliant blog by the creator of the Dilbert cartoons. You should it check out. No really, you should.

At the moment they are discussing free will (First, second, and third posts on the subject), brought on, as are so many theological and philosophical questions, by the Pope's propensity to label millions of people evil because their religious dogma is different from his.

It all began with this simple question "If a man goes into the forest and pokes a bear with a sharp stick, and the bear kills the man, whose fault is it?" (it gets more involved but you'll have to go there to read the whole thing)

Some people seem to think the stick (or the manufacturer of sticks) was to blame, which seems rather "clever, clever" to me rather than having any real meaning. What was particularly interesting though was the fact that the Dilbert creator (aka Scott Adams) basically thinks the answer is forget fault, all we are is "moist robots" whose actions are entirely predetermined by the mechanics of our brains, bodies and the way we interact with the environment.

His argument boils down to this: The bear is going to kill anyone who pokes it with a stick, but the man, although he may have more general ability to appear rational is just as confined by his poking desires, all his life has led up to that moment and he could do no other - you might as well blame the stick for as much ability either had to change course. "Each creature acted according to its nature and its programming, as all moist robots must." Whew! Full on.

I did muse about the meaning of life (of all things) in an earlier post (here) in which I big up the main man Sartre (who I spelt wrong, doh) who believed that we are *condemned* by our free will and therefore responsible for our actions - but I also think that Wittgenstein is handy here too, in that he questions the very paradigms we use when posing philosophical questions. In some senses philosophical debates are often word games, where the shape of our language limits and shapes the argument, rather than being plausible explorations of the truth.

We think, we feel, we make decisions - in what way is it relevant to say could I have chosen another path at a certain point in time if I did not? What bearing do the concepts determinism and free will have upon us apart from as convenient moral cloaking devices to back up our positions on other questions. "He chose to murder" / "he's a product of his environment" would be the classic example - and in my mind BOTH things are true and useful simultaneously.

If we want to reduce crime (for example) we know that crime is a social phenomenon whose rates vary according to a number of social factors. Looking after the health, wealth and happiness of the population has always been a better method at reducing rates of crime than prison, the noose or 501 new flavours of law. But it's also true to say that if you kill your wife you bear "some" responsibility for this. The individual should not be lost whilst looking at the way social factors shape the members of that society.

Certainly it's no use expecting Islamophobic cartoonists not to be offensive, just as there's little point pretending that people will not get offended if you deliberately target their beliefs - but we should behave as if we can make a difference in the world and that our actions can change the outcome of events, preferably for the better.

How representative is democracy?

I noticed this in Comment is Free today - Making every vote count by Ben Rogers - on electoral reform. He seems wildly optimistic that New Labour are thinking of reforming the electoral system.

Although there have been very minor electoral reforms in the last nine years it's still difficult to think of our democratic institutions as really being owned and controlled by the people themselves. In my view, it's going to take a far more wide ranging overhaul of our public bodies to even begin a much needed process of democratic renewal.

One of the things that irritates me about the 'respectable' electoral reform people is they want to focus on one bit of the system at a time. The House of Lords people don't want to look at the House of Commons, the PR people just want to focus on general elections and the devolution people only want to think about the regions. In fact if we can begin a process of reassessing these institutions it makes more sense to do turn it into one process rather than piecemeal reform that ends up leaving everything more or less the same but with a new logo.

Certainly representative democracy doesn't feel very representative to me. Here in Cambridge, at the last local elections, of the 32,835 votes cast the outcome was as follows;

LibDems
...........38.6% of the vote 69% of the seats (29) could have been 16 seats
Labour
...........25.4% of the vote 31% of the seats (13) could have been 11 seats
Tories
...........21.4% of the vote no seats could have been 09 seats
Greens
...........12.6% of the vote no seats could have been 05 seats
Respect
...........01.7% of the vote no seats could have been 01 seat (God bless them!)

The last number is an illustration of how many seats each group *might* have received had people voted the same way under a straight PR system for the local council (which is a bit of a supposition as people tend not to vote for people they don't think will get in). As it currently stands our council is decided on an almost a winner take all basis. The Tories get over 1 in 5 votes yet don't receive even one councilor to represent those 6,000 plus people who voted for them. Can that really be right?

Here are a few suggestions to be getting on with.

i) abolish the monarchy. Let the PM be head of state for a change.
ii) scrap the House of Lords - replacing it with a second, elected chamber.
iii) proportional representation for local elections (as in Scotland next year)
iv) widening the range of government positions (both local and national) that are elected rather than appointed.

But we also need to look at the experiments in participatory democracy, like those in Latin America, that do not rely on electing someone to look after our interests but allow us to directly look after our own interests for ourselves. That's not something that can come for legislation though - that has to be created from a community and workplace level.

Its only when we're starting to reclaim democracy as a living breathing thing with a content of its own rather than a system of structures and laws will we really be on the path to creating a democratic society.

Post number one hundred

Do I get a telegram from the Queen or anything? I really think I should, one hundred blog posts is a landmark moment for any blog I'm sure you'll agree.

Blog News: Blogger seems to be playing up with the photos which is why there have been less of them recently (hopefully the difficulties are only temporary as it does let me add pics some of the time, see right).

I've started work on the "100 top Green blogs" and if there are any volunteers to help it would be very much appreciated - partly because it's a mammoth task, partly because it helps ensure I don't miss out any deserving bloggers and lastly because it means I can palm off the 'marking' of the blogs run by people I know, avoiding any embarrassing situations should they land in 97th place. Email me if you're keen to lend a helping hand, however modest.

I particularly need more blogs for the list, Greenpeace activists? People and Planet-ers? Scottish and Welsh blogs? Anarcho-greens? Friends of the Earth and others - where are you? They just need to be (i) blogs, (ii) based in the UK, (iii) not hopelessly out of date, (iv) be written by green (in the broad sense) activists / writers - but they do not need to deal exclusively with green politics.

In fact, if you have suggestions in general about the blog please feel free to send in your suggestions, (friendly) criticisms, links, best wishes or whatever.

Boris Lidovski wins nine year battle

Boris Lidovski fled Russia nine years ago after being threatened with death by the mafia.

Not long after arriving in Cambridge the Home Office wanted to deport Boris as an illegal immigrant sparking a mammoth struggle that Boris described as like "living on a volcano" where he didn't know if he was to be sent back to Russia, separating him from his Chechen partner and son who had already won the right to stay.

The nine year struggle has been full of set backs, problems and difficulties - and it often looked as if the Home Office would get its way, particularly when the local Labour MP (who was subsequently lost her seat) would not help in the case. For Boris to eventually win his right to stay was something that often looked like an impossible dream.

Boris said "It was a fantastic result and a real surprise. I have so many friends in Cambridge and so many people know me... I would have given up if I didn't know so many people were behind me. It kept me going."

Boris' union the CWU was at the center of his defense team and, in particular, Paul Turnbull, a local SWP member, who managed the "Boris Lidovski Must Stay" campaign. Boris said that "I say he is my brother. The support from the union has been very good."

Across the country there are hundreds of people facing similar circumstances to those faced by Boris - and not all of them are lucky enough to have people around them who are willing to be there for the long haul. I have the greatest admiration for those who campaign and fight for people's right to have a safe and secure existence.

It is not lines on a map that should be our greatest concern, but social justice.

The News Story They All Missed

It's amazing that every news agency appears to have missed this one.

When Blair announced this was the last time he'd address Labour Party conference as PM many thought he intended to leave Number Ten sometime in the next year. In fact, in a press clarfication issued today, it turns out Blair had intended the announcement to signal that Labour Conferences were "a bit of an effort" and are to be discontinued, whilst he remains PM for "nine more years" or at least until that "Scottish sour puss is out of the picture".

Gordon Brown has been unavailable for comment since the clarification and a spokesman for Mr Blair said in a statement "sorry for the confusion everyone".

Postie hero keeps his job

The BBC carries news that an anti-junk mail postman has kept his Royal Mail job after a period of suspension

Initially I thought this meant that he'd been refusing to deliver and been punished for it - but the truth is he'd been far softer on the junk mail eco-hooligans than he could have been.

"Roger Annies, 45, was disciplined after telling people on his post round about an opt-out clause [for junk mail delivery]...Mr Annies, originally from Germany, delivered a leaflet to households on his round which gave instructions on how to stop receiving "unwanted post". But the father-of-one was suspended when his actions came to the notice of Royal Mail managers...

"He was doing us all a favour but unfortunately he's had a lot of trouble over it. We think they should give him his job back and a pat on the back for thinking on behalf of the people. He's a very loyal postman." Communication Workers' Union representative Amarjite Singh said: "We're glad with the outcome that they haven't dismissed him."
One of the many examples where producing less would increase the quality of life rather than reduce it. Good on Mr Annies and let's spread his message far and wide.

To stop junk mail (and conserve natural resources currently being wasted on annoying people):

Unaddressed mail - Opt-Outs, Royal Mail, Kingsmead House, Oxpens Road, Oxford, OX1 1RX
Addressed mail - Mail Preference Service (MPS), Freepost 29, LON 20771, London, W1E 0ZT or call 0845 703 4599

Subverting the economic paradigm

Having slightly recovered from conference I'll try to round it up and cover some of the issues I've missed.

On the whole it's been an enjoyable and instructive experience. Whilst a couple of the debates could have been conducted in far more fraternal manner it's actually a good sign that there is a bit of argie bargy and vociferous discussion. A party that agrees and has consistent consensus year on end would be one that's ideologically dead.

The fact that debate was carried out in a less ideological, more thoughtful way was really useful and helped generate a more creative debate. For instance, during the education debate someone got up and went through the reasons why people choose to go down the city academy route. He didn't waste much of his time putting in loads of caveats around why he opposed them, although he clearly did, but he thought it would be useful to those present to hear the arguments as they are actually put. In a hard left meeting it's often difficult to do this sort of thing without a number of "robust interventions" designed to "come back" on the speaker with the clear implication that just by understanding and stating the opposition's arguments you somehow agree with them.

It was also very useful to meet other bloggers there, like new Female Principle Speaker Sian Berry (who was victim of a rather sexist, if well intentioned article in the Independent), Natalie Bennett (whose brain is so enormous it pulls small planets into its orbit), Peter Sanderson (who, as I suspected, was a thoroughly like-able chap), Derek Wall (whose voice gave way at the beginning of conference), and Matthew "silver tongue" Sellwood (who alone out of this list has yet to give his report of conference - well worth reading the other perspectives). I'm sure there were other bloggers there, and if you've reported on conference feel free to link to it from my comments box - I'd be interested to see what you thought.

Some the debates I've not covered and really should include were for a total smoking ban (which some of you will be surprised to hear I abstained on due to a long and very interesting discussion with Jessica Goldfinch from Norwich who was totally opposed), for stronger policy on taxing high earners (strengthening an already held commitment to progressive taxation), a great discussion on repealing the anti-trade union laws which passed with around six delegates against (which shows just how big the right of the party really is), although we didn't get to the motion proposing the abolition of MI5. I'll discuss prostitution when I've more time to do it justice I think.

In terms of tendencies at conference there is obviously the rambunctious grouping I've mentioned. There's also the media savvies, there's a layer of people who seem to have come because they passionately believe in a particular policy and want to get it discussed and passed, there's also those who came to see the old friends who come every year and there's also the constitutionalists. At the beginning of conference I think I made the mistake of merging the obstreporous grouping with the constitutionalists in that both seemed more concerned about the debate on the controversial motions taking place at all rather than discussing the issues.

There are people like John Norris (who has a very quiet voice, high trousers and frequently wears a hat) who I unfairly thought were wreckers and now, having spoken to him, I realise that pedantry is his first love rather than ego and he is actually a rather pleasant chap. Obviously he still belongs to a tendency I'm not so keen on, but I think it's only fair to acknowledge that he, and a couple of others did behave appropriately during the debates and I must ensure I remember to differentiate between those who took a view I didn't agree with and those who choose to express those views in a totally inappropriate way, which in the end turns out to be a tiny handful of people - the kind most organisations can find themselves blighted with.

On diversity there are two issues really. First the ethnic mix of the Green Party is predominantly white and this needs some thought as to why that is. Secondly although women are very well represented in the party and in conference - far better than most (if not all) other parties in fact - there was a massive disparity when it came to women standing for position. The new national executive (GPEx) is an overwhelmingly male body, and this is quite unrepresentative of the party as a whole. Interestingly when speakers mentioned this and talked about encouraging women to stand (a few people mentioned the idea of quotas too) quite a few women seemed totally opposed even to the idea of encouragement - I think on the basis that they felt it would be patronising. What ever the solution it certainly is a problem that we should try to address, but perhaps the first step is to ask women why they don't want to stand for these positions. There's lots of theories, which may or may not be sound, but until we do some research they are just that.

It maybe that some of the difficulties are insurmountable, but if there are barriers to women standing for positions, or just cultural attitudes that it more difficult then we really should know about it and set about making the executive as diverse as the membership.

PS My email backlog is getting ridiculous - so apologies if I haven't replied to something urgent - hopefully I'll get round to it!

Review madness

Everyone must join the Green Party now and you must all come to the next conference, and then you must all come to the Saturday Review. It's bonkers and I don't think I've laughed so much in ages.

Essentially those at conference do little skits of their own devising - often based on events at conference. Cllr Rupert Read sang a Joan Baez number, which was very brave unaccompanied, Peter Cranie compared but also spontaneously burst into "message from America" when the crowd heckled, numerous humorous skits were performed.

From memory Green Party top trumps, a brilliant physical comedy foursome, a parody of the Monty Python "I had it so tough" sketch but turned into an "I'm more green than you" featuring just classics as "Yes, recycling your waste paper is alright if you're satisfied to be a eco-terrorist servant of the multi-nationals" and many many others. Now I was really impressed - comedy is very hard to do (well) and there wasn't a single act that didn't have its moments. Even the guy who sang the IRA song was great.

Having been scarred by political cabaret in the past I did get myself safely anesthetised first, which may have helped, but it is certainly something you have to witness. Bloody brilliant.

The hustings of a host of uncontested posts

All good elections require a decent hustings don't you think? Of course you do - like me you're utterly reasonable.

Well the Green Party also agrees, agrees to the extent that even if posts are uncontested there is still a hustings for the posts (and why not? They put Re-Open Nominations (RON) on every ballot paper, which is always an option)

This may be a technical detail too far for the blog but the election process works like this (I think), before conference you can submit yourself for election to a specific national post. If at the close of the deadline for nominations the post is contested by more than one candidate it will be put out in a postal ballot to the membership. If there is just one, or God forbid no volunteer for the job then nominations re-open and the election takes place at conference.

Of the 13 posts we heard hustings 'debates' for two were actually contested. The male principle speaker (which goes out to the members) and external communications. The two candidates for ExComms were Penny Kemp, who I believe I may have mentioned in passing, and Jim Killick who I probably haven't mentioned but was the current post holder and is one of the most capable and far-sighted Green Party members I met all weekend... I bet you can't guess who I voted for.

Anyway, Jim received 122 votes to Kemp's 87 - poor old RON got just 6. Hurrah! If PK had been elected it would have effectively created a factional friction in the exec. they'd have been a external communications person who was unable to work with certain sections of the exec effectively and it was totally irresponsible of her to stand in the first place - based purely on a targeting of Jim Killick because he knows what he's doing and approaches politics with a degree of professionalism and seriousness that Kemp mistakes for being of the right.

Dressing like a normal person is not right wing, it's kind of part of the job description for someone who has to constantly deal with the media. Incidentally, when I congratulated him on his win he was most magnanimous and said it would not have been a disaster if PK had been elected - at which of course I snorted and hrrrumpffed - but he knows his manners, give him his due.

Other RON's of note. Poor old Tim Summers got most RONs with 42 to his 162 votes (which is more than 20% of the vote for RON, hmmm) and Peter Cranie (who keeps getting tipped for the top job, not that there is one) got least RONs with 4 to his 206 votes.

Sound... very sound.

Green Left fringe meeting

Saturday night was time for the Green Left fringe meeting. I think this is the first time Green Left has made an official appearance at conference and it was pretty good in my opinion - certainly the biggest fringe I attended.

Green Left is an "ecosocialist" current inside of the Green Party (please don't ask me what ecosocialist means beyond being both ecological and socialist, I have no idea). This is not a Workers Spatula type affair, it's got the backing of key Green Party figures like Richard Mallender (National Chair) who chaired the meeting and Sian Berry (new Principle Speaker). You can check out their website here if you want. No pressure.

Leaving out the chair there were four speakers. Miriam Kennett of the Green Economics working group, Derek Wall, who's running for Male Principle Speaker and pops up everywhere, Penny Kemp, cough, and Peter Tatchell, who needs no introduction.

Penny Kemp began proceedings with possibly the least left wing speech of the entire conference, let alone the Green Left fringe. Telling us about low energy light bulbs, setting up a community shop, how big a vote she got and life styles. Um, this is Green Party conference - do you really think is moving the debate forwards at all? The one interesting thing she said was that mass movements were important because the elected representatives need them to get through legislation.

BUZZ - Wrong! Elected officials are there to support the movement not the other way round. Sigh.

Miriam Kennett was really interesting and she did make me think I should sign up for this Green Economics thing in order to bring myself up to speed. She talked about the difference between charity and doing nice things for people and bringing about change at a systematic level, but most importantly she started talking about the kinds of real contributions she felt the left could make to the green movement.

For her the left brings forward a high quality and coherent analysis - a class analysis, and that any study of neoliberalism had to start their, with an understanding of class. As the first green I've heard at conference talk about class struggle she gets the JimJay award for excellence. Congrats.

Derek Wall spoke very well I thought - despite his voice failing. I thought he was good on fundamentals like the fact that any attempt to save the planet from ecological disaster has to understand and take on capitalism itself. He also did some groovy name checking of Marx, William Morris and William Blake which was fleeting but pleasant.

Two things he said require further thought on my part.

Firstly he described the Green Left as a "comfort zone" which was the last thing I expected him to say. I suppose he was emphasising the fact that the project is genuinely not intended to be part of a factional struggle in the party, and I suppose somewhere where you can touch base with the ideas of class analysis and anti-capitalism. However, it does seem odd to me to describe something that hopes to promote class struggle as a comfort zone. Anyway.

Secondly, central to Derek's view of the economic problems we face today is about constant growth and accumulation - something central to most economists view of what a healthy economy looks like - but possibly moving towards the more hair shirted environmentalism that I feel less affinity to. I'm probably being unfair - as I say I'm keen to discuss economics a bit more just to help myself get my head around the issues.

Lastly Peter Tatchell spoke very well indeed and he was the first speaker, somewhat surprisingly for a left meeting, to place the emphasis on trade unionism and the workers movement itself. That was great and, I think, it helped raise the whole tone of the debate. He also laid out what he thought Green Left should be all about.

Firstly he said it was not there to "make trouble" (which may be a first for Tatchell, and obviously I mean that in a positive way) and that it was about strengthening the Green Party, something that has got to be the case, otherwise it's pointless. Certainly his views backed up what's I've been saying, that the Green Left has no real role in terms of ensuring policy moves left - it's already left, no question - although I'm sure GL can play a useful role in ongoing policy development.

For me I think it's about bring the Green Party into the trade unions, the anti-war movement, the climate change demo on the 4th Nov, et al as well as bringing those movements into the Greens. It's not that Green Party members aren't members of trade unions, or don't go on demos - but there does need to be a more coherent strategic approach, in my view, and it needs to go through the party from top to bottom rather than being left at the level of motions to conference or well intentioned initiatives of executive members. There's a gap between formal support and active involvement that really should be closed.

Tatchell talked about the cultural impact the green movement has had upon this country, to the extent that the mainstream parties are having to cope with and accommodate green ideas - but he also referred to the Green Party as the most successful left progressive party in the last fifty years - something that's pretty hard to argue with frankly, although historically those on the progressive left have not always seen the Greens as part of that movement.

That's why it's so important, according to Tatchell, that the Green Left help the Party as a whole appeal to trade unionists, to show the Green Party is the place for them and that those people from Labour or the hard left parties who are thinking of "making the jump" need that assurance. Perhaps that's what Derek meant by comfort zone.

Whether the left could cope with being in the Green Party I don't know. There would certainly be a culture shock - the tradition of centralisation goes deep, also the method of robust interventions and harsh political discourse certainly would leave any leftist unable to shake these habits pretty isolated in a party that has a decentralised, humanist ethic.

I was asked earlier whether Greens use the term 'comrade'. The obvious answer is no but there was a guy who used the word 'comrades' in a workshop and before I knew what I was doing I rolled my eyes and a load of people laughed. Oops - I hadn't actually meant to do that and the bloke who used the offending term is a good chap in my view - but image and how things come across is not really on his agenda. Thankfully I don't think he realised why people had laughed so his feelings were spared.

But this does beg the question what *do* the Greens refer to each other as? Colleague? Fellow party member? Elf master? I should really be told!

Taylor and Lucas key note speeches

The Green Party has no leader, but it does have two principle speakers - one male and one female.

Up until this conference they have been Keith Taylor and Caroline Lucas who both made keynote speeches on Friday and Saturday respectively. Where Caroline is universally regarded as some sort of perfect Earth Mother figure Keith is often regarded as a more conservative figure.

It's certainly true that Caroline is attractive and speaks very well (obviously I'm not saying is not attractive, despite his potato like appearance, cough, apologies) comparing the two speeches was quite instructive I thought.

Both speeches were very strong on the war, Caroline on specifics about the casualties in the middle east and the human cost of war - and Keith damning Bush and Blair and calling for Tony to be tried as a war criminal - and attacking nuclear weapons.

Keith used the C word of course - by which I mean capitalism (blushing, that was genuinely unintentional, but I'll leave it in none the less) - and attacked neoliberalism (naming it as such). He said it was a myth that "the market will deliver environmental and social solutions."

In terms of content in other words both of them were excellent, interesting and on the left of the left. It would be a nonsense to describe Keith as on the right I think, despite his respectable councilor's image. This is a man who gained 22% at the general election and may be the first Green MP ever in this country whose ideas revolve around social and environmental justice, neoliberalism, opposition to the market and imperialism. Not too shabby well all is said and done.

In terms of style Caroline is, I suppose rather more accomplished. Keith came across slightly breathlessly and perhaps a little bit self consciously - speaking like a man making a speech, if that makes sense. Adopting some of the politician's manner, without corrupting the radical message.

I don't know what I think about that. I do think image and style are important - but I also think it's worth having a clear separate identity. Blair's image is of a spinning, lying, corporate snake - that's not the road I'd like us (us!) to go down - not that Keith was anywhere near that.

As he said the main stream parties are hopelessly out of touch with the aspirations of this generation and have no sense of responsibility to the generations to come. It's worth avoiding stupid cosmetic mistakes but any carefully crafted image has to be one that looks and feels like participation and democracy. It should feel humane rather than slick and organic and sincere rather than manufactured.

At least that's my view on that. I'm not against the "power dressing" that one delegate complained of (by which I think she meant people wearing shirts and looking like they had jobs) but it's worth ensuring we don't go down the road of thinking that in order to beat New Labour we have to act and look like them. Thankfully we're a million miles from that right now.

After amber, before red

Slight break in blogging unfortunately, the facilities were a bit too inconvenient and other things were going on.

[Shrugs, yawns stylishly, stares into space with an air of bored disdain then begins to type again]

The crash accommodation became incredibly popular with lots of new women - they'd obviously heard. In fact it was so full that by morning you couldn't walk across the room without stepping on someone's carefully placed feet or arms. It was a bit strange around four in the morning to wake up and realise a mere three inches from my face was a less than well covered female thigh. Well, worse things happen at sea I suppose.

Oh, and a word on etiquette. Don't take your pants off in front of an entire room of strangers. I mean it - don't!

My first conference has been a steep learning curve and I really feel I'm starting to understand the Green Party, nationally, a bit better, and am feeling much less wary about the thing despite all the rows and lack of pant removal awareness. As a socialist in the Green Party although I joined in good faith and don't have any pseudo-entryist aims to turn it into a mass revolutionary party or whatever I had been unsure how far I'd be able to feel it was *my* party.

Well, i guess part of the function of conferences like this is to help integrate people into the organisation and it's worked. I've used the word "we" when talking about the Greens and I'm confident that the political ethos of the Party is one I'm at one with. I've also decided to stop calling people muppets as it's probably disrespectful.

True of course, but disrespectful.

Prostitution and other matters

There was such a great session on prostitution but I just don't have time to do it justice. I promise I will get back to this.

Other sessions today of great value was the stuff against the war and on the middle east specificly. There was a motion condemning Hezbollah equally with the US/UK/Israel which I thought a little simplistic but the discussion was pretty good.

There was a motion on the Turkish repression of the Kurds and to defend PKK leader Ocalan and a guest speaker from a Kurdish Party that received two million votes at the last election despite being illegal.

There was a really excellent motion on local shops (wooo!) which I took as an endorsement of the No Chains stuff we've been doing in Mill Road - it was so spot on.

There was also stuff on direct action against nukes plus discussion of Faslane (there will be direct action training on the beech tomorrow.... I'm so excited!)

A really good and level headed motion on Iran and a host of other down the line left wing stuff.

I'm consistently surprised at how left wing the party is - I'd have joined it even if it was far further to the right - but it certainly makes it more comfortable for a leftist to exist in - some of them just need to get a little more self aware though. Sometimes they do not come across as well as they could...

More on prostitution and Keith Taylor's big speech tomorrow - run out of time for now though - sorry.

Atunement

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

More flipping rows

Jeez. I was pretty disappointed yesterday with some of the name calling and bad behavior in the session on Keith Taylor, but today one session was just beserk!

The debate was on the topic that's on everyone's lips all round the country - membership ballots on constitutional changes. Gasp.

I'll be brief. In order to change the constitution, or "Philosophical Basis" you need a 2/3rds majority. The motion (D02) proposed that if something won a simple majority at conference (but not 2/3rds) then it could be put to the membership in a ballot (which would still require 2/3rd majority to pass).

It's partly tied in to the debate over having a leader which, apparently consistently gets a majority at conference (to have leader, boo) but never gets enough support for it to become policy. So although I'm not in favour of the leader thing I see no reason that a minority of conference should be able to block a wider debate on the subject with those who are not part of the self selected group of conference goers.

Darren Johnson put the motion and in the debate Matt Selwood made a very smooth tongued speech in favour. What surprised me was the downright vile behavior of those who opposed - including some who are supposedly left wing like Penny Kemp, who I've lost all respect for.

There were a number of wrecking amendments three to change the barrier to get the ballot approved by conference to 2/3rd (which begs the question if you can't get 2/3rds to agree in the constitutional change how are you going to get 2/3rd to agree to put that very question to the members?) And one to raise the quorum of the postal vote from 15% to 33% a barrier higher than any previous postal ballot ever taken by the Greens.

My point that if you oppose the motion you should vote against it not put in amendments to destroy the motion was well taken I thought.

Anyway we had allegations of corruption, people grabbing the mike and speaking without being called, pointless point of information / order after another - often not really points of order at all but yet another speech against. When the votes on amendments began the wreckers realised they were on the losing side. The first three amendments fell 46 to 188.

But instead of calmly battling on, accepting the will of conference they behaved... ah... it's too terrible to mention. Some delegates were utterly revolted by the sight of these (mainly gandalf types) cavorting and bullying and making allegations of dishonesty against anyone who disagreed with them. Others just laughed and I realised if you step back it's not nearly so painful.

Anyway, the chair was suffering terribly as these people just ignored him and they clearly think they own the party and they simply had no respect for democracy. The motion itself passed 115 to 50 (some people had walked out by this time) gaining the 2/3rds it required. a card vote was insisted upon by people who had just a few seconds before been insisting that card votes could not be trusted. The motion passed 150 to 54 this time (the extra are proxy votes on the whole) and justice was served.

It all just confirms to me that there are some very serious people in the Green Party that I dearly want to work with very much - and there is a minority of utter muppets.

NHS

The Greens have a small but committed trade union group and a good deal of the speakers identify themselves as trade unionists.

The also passed an emergency motion yesterday as follows;

"This conference supports the workers at NHS logistics in their strike action against being privatised and calls for an immediate halt to all privatisation of the NHS. Conference calls upon GPEx to publicise our support."

Which is great. It's interesting the level of openness to the trade unions that exists in the party. Today one of the main speakers was Brian Synott from the European Federation of Public Services Unions (which includes lots of the main unions in the UK) who spoke interestingly and well on what's happening at a European level.

With this level of support the Green trade union group really needs to raise their game to turn "support" into real active involvement. Although it's unfair, many people certainly would not associate the Greens with Trade Unions and the only way to turn that around is to get to the front of the movement. At least it's good to see here in the hall, I wondered if there would be any opposition to trade unionism and it appears there is consensus. Cool.

Another, more problematic motion was passed earlier today which, whilst having it's heart in the right places needs much more thought as to the implications.

"The Green Party believes it is wrong in principle that private health care companies and agencies should be able to employ or use staff who have been expensively trained by the NHS without contributing something to the cost of that training. Therefore companies, including pharmaceutical companies, employing or using NHS trained healthcare professionals outside the NHS will have to pay an additional training tax. This will take the form of a levy for each person hour during which they employ or use NHS trained staff outside the NHS. The proceeds from this levy will go directly into the NHS Tax which the Green Party is going to create."

Leaving aside the fact that this may make laid off NHS staff near unemployable by any employer with an eye to cost the whole emphasis is wrong. It's focus is on the individual health worker not the structures of the health system. A cleaner isn't expensively trained but they should be an NHS member of staff not in the hands of a private company.

We should abolish the agencies and privateers and take the whole of the health care system into public ownership not tinker about making NHS trained workers more expensive to employ than their private counterparts.

Crash land

Considering the crash accommodation was a floor in a church hall things weren't too bad.

Around twenty men and a couple of women packed into what became a rather cozy sleeping arrangement (steady... steady...) and good fortune smiles upon me - my sleeping bag turned up again. Whether I'll be able to withstand this until Sunday, who knows with my back... at my age... with my back. Anyway I feel pretty chipper on it.

Green Party conference, just like any other, has the debates and workshops, but a lot of the real action takes place over coffee, beer and hummus in the halls and dining areas around the venue. It's been a really useful experience on many levels talking to committed and experienced left wing activists from a very different tradition. Although parts of these conversations have been frightening to say the least.

Conference is either really difficult to understand or just chaos with a just thin veneer of structure, designed mainly to confuse. I'm still at a loss to work out the logic of their national election procedures which mean that male principle speaker will be elected by a members postal ballot and all the other posts (including female principle speaker) will be elected at conference. Anyway I had the fright of my life when someone asked me to go on the national executive.

I was like "We've just met, you barely know me! Are you just asking everyone you talk to?!?!?" Thankfully I'm not allowed as you have to be a member for two years but the principle just seems nuts.

Ed mentioned in an earlier comment that the beard factor was still far too high. It's been something I've been looking out for, and I think it's reasonably fair to say 10% of the delegates have just arrived from middle earth and any one of them could weave a long, strong rope with their fulsome beards. That's a far lower percentage than I was expecting.

During the local elections in Cambridge the CEN published pictures of all candidates for all wards and in almost every case you could tell who the Green Party candidate was without reading the caption. What came as something of a relief is that a full 90% of delegates *appear* not to be nutters at all and come within an acceptable spectrum of *normal looking*. God bless them.

The same cannot be said of the food which consists of unidentifiable heaps of something unspeakably vegan. My recommendation is to go to Planet Janet for breakfast who do a lovely poached egg on toast. I notice they also do massage and the dreaded Reiki - which is an odd combination but maybe useful after the more stressful sessions (not for me obviously)

Another thing I realised about delegates today was that more than half of them are women. Now *that* is unusual, although it is also predominantly white (not wholly you understand).

Much talk of Newsnight today - if people just learned to behave it would not have happened!

Politicians need time to develop, just like children

Excitement over and back to less fractious topics.

Much of the day's debating was on education. Numerous workshops, plenaries and the rest were devoted to new ways of doing education, the threats to schooling, the experiences of parents, teachers and kids of the school system.

It's certainly not my expert subject and my main theatre of political operations around schools have essentially been to encourage kids to riot - both when I was at school myself and later on when I should have known better. Still don't of course, still don't.

The debates that I attended on this (and I skipped class to talk to people about blogs and other new media stuff so I missed a fair bit) were really, really good. Not theoretically deep, but definitely challenging and "looking beyond capitalism into different economic systems" with all that might imply for education.

What was clear was this is a party with a vision (of God I sound like a paid up member or something, see my earlier negative remarks for some balance) that doesn't simply say privatisation bad (although there were people talking about this) and unions good (ditto) but also looking at other methods.

Now I'm not a great fan of Steiner schools and home schooling in particular - but the debates around these were fascinating because they pulled apart why you might want to take this route, what the advantages were, the disadvantages and the possibilities of mixing methods.

Whilst Blair and co focus on the end result (your A level in citizenship and other drivel) there was a determined effort to treat the subject as an opportunity to see where and how things arise. There was a reassertion that the subject of education is a human being not a just valuable addition to someone's workforce.

There was some talk of "planetary literacy" which threw me a bit but what I think they were saying, when I cut through the slightly horrid jargon, was that there is a space where science and society meet and this should be at the center of a decent education system.

Children as the victims of our current education system can be oppressed, have the fun of learned knocked out of them and have instilled in them a respect for authority (which is a bad thing).

Let's turn away from the sausage factory schools and look towards more child friendly methods that are as diverse as the children that are taught.

That crucial vote

To that crucial vote I mentioned.

It looks like Newsnight may be running with this tonight as it shows the Green Party in a bad light (and the day could only go up from here). In fact they are running a poll What's the point of the Green Party charming boys, charming.

It's a strange story. The Green Party has no leader - but it does have two principle speakers, one male and one female. Up until now the female principle speaker has been Caroline Lucas (more on that soon) and her male counter part is Keith Taylor - Brighton councilor and potentially the first Green MP - if they can break the glass ceiling.

Anyway, to stand for (re)election you have to fill in some forms get members to sign it and give it in on time. Naughty Keith pushed the deadline and one of his ten nominees turned out not to be a registered member despite giving large sums of cash to the party regularly. As you might expect non-party members can't nominate in these elections and although it came as a shock to all that this person was not officially a member some party members decided that Keith's forms were not filled in correctly and so he was not nominated and so the election would be between the two 'minor' candidates.

Now whilst I believe there was some incompetence here on the part of Keith (who may well have more important things to think about than filling in forms absolutely 100% correctly) it was simple idiocy for people to argue that he could not stand.

I shalln't go into the logistics of why there was a debate on this - but there was - and those who felt Keith should not be on the ballot paper did not start off on the right foot with me. "Rules are rules" were their very first words to conference, I kid you not. Rules are bloody rules. Another delegate said that "If we don't have rules... there would be chaos."

In these people's minds democracy exists through its adherence to procedure. Well, I totally disagree. Democracy is defined by the level of participation of the ordinary members. These people were seeking to deny the members the chance to vote for someone they clearly wanted to elected last time round, and whatever I may think of Keith (and I have no major grievances) any male principle speaker elected without Keith on the ballot paper would have no legitimacy and a decision of that nature could spark a civil war in the party.

In my view better a centre left progressive who can fulfill the functions of principle speaker than someone to his left who is viewed with disgruntlement or even hostility by the members. In whose interests would that be? If Keith was to stop being principle speaker in my view he should be beaten in a fair fight, not ruled out of order because of one incorrect nomination that he was given no chance to correct.

Leo Lipman said "Why do we have rules?" which I thought was *the* question in this context. And he ended his speech by saying "The spirit of the law is more important than the letter of law." Absolutely.

The debate was marred with tetchiness, mainly from the anti-Keith people. One person said he didn't want to be "railroaded... this isn't the SWP" and there were a number of references to the Hove caucus - as if the only people who opposed the move to bar Keith from the election were his mates. I don't appreciated being labeled anything whether it be that I'm "like" the SWP or I'm from Hove.

Hove! With it's woeful lack of internet cafes! Pah.

One amusing moment was when one delegate accidentally referred to the debate as being around the election of a leader. Shrieks of comical squeaking went up "Leader!?! Leader?!?" Man, I almost fell off my chair and for all my irritation that moment confirmed for me I was in the right room.

Anyway, the hands went up, it was close - but it looked to me like Keith was to be barred from standing. A card vote was called, points of order raised, proxy votes questioned... and in the end the proposal fell by 84 to 67. Keith can stand and newsnight now have their footage of Green Party members behaving like idiots... I wont get a chance to see it so please let me know how it goes. Sigh.

Muppet count was pretty high this morning.

There was then a second motion attempting to do something similar but via a different route. Matt Wooten, someone I've been smiling at from afar ever since he dissed the disgraced ex-party leader to his face, said "let the members decide" which seems so obvious, but so badly needed saying.

Another vote (no cards this time) 46 for barring Keith, 48 against. Recount. 50 for barring Keith, 55 against. Hurrah! Disaster averted - what are some people thinking?

Member 96331 signing in

Okay, it's just taken me two hours to find internet access. Probably not the best use of my time - but I did get to see the sea.

Man, it must be something to do with political conferences - disorganised, fractious, chummy and very, very useful all at the same time. Green Party hacks may look slightly more organic than their union or left wing counterparts but they have the same steel like determination to get amendment two part b through that I would recognise anywhere. I also think there may be a 'hack walk' - I think this deserves more study. I digress.

The day did not start well, standing in an almost motionless queue as a disoriented volunteer with "rabbit caught in the headlights" eyes tried to register the ever increasing line. I swear he sat shaking with money in one hand, filled in form in the other and asked a woman three times (!) what her name was again. She took it like a saint as I dreamed up new ways I could reek my revenge on him.

This is absolutely unfair of course because it was actually the TEAM of hacks who sat round watching him for a quarter of an hour before volunteering to give him a hand that were the real villains of the piece - but I was in a sweat. I'd made the special effort to get to Brighton for the start of conference for the day's only crucial vote and it looked set for me to miss it by a whisker standing in some kind of Bretchian interpretation of a queue.

Don't get me wrong most conferences of this kind have an air of incompetence about them - possibly due to being staffed by volunteers for the day, always new to the job, but it does grate don't you know.

Will Brighton Rock?

Well, tomorrow I'll be off to my very first Green Party conference, spending Thursday to Sunday in sunny Brighton.

I have absolutely no idea what to expect, but it will be interesting to see how it compares to other conferences I've attended. For instance, how many references to the Arctic Monkeys will there be? Of course that would be the very opposite of cool, i.e. a middle aged man's idea of what passes for 'trendy'. No offense meant boys.

I'm staying in the rather frighteningly named "crash accommodation" and I have been advised that conference embodies both the very worst and the very best of the Green Party membership, gulp. Double gulp.

I'm going to try to blog conference day by day - but we'll have to see what the facilities are like, you may have to wait until I get back, keep your fingers crossed. There will be at least one other blogger at conference Sian Berry, a very charming young woman, who can be found here during conference - maybe she'll have a laptop I can borrow...

So if there's anything you'd like me to look out for, Caroline Lucas turning up in a 4x4, ritual chanting and the burning of enormous wicker structures just let me know and I'll keep 'em peeled.

Green Blogs

Iain Dale, Tory ambassador to the blogosphere, recently published his top political blogs. [1]

But one of things that worried me about his lists, comprehensive though they are, is they appear to have a very narrow view of what a political blog actually is. When you realise they are divided into Tory, LibDem and Labour blogs you'll immediately see why I say this.

What about the anarchist blogs? The feminists? The Greens and the left of Labour blogs? Well, I suppose you can't expect a Tory to include them, but that's no reason to let him define what blogs are and are not political.

So, I've taken it on myself to compile the top 100 Green Blogs, and I hope others will take up the challenge to cover the other bases. To this end I've begun compiling a list of all the *UK* Green blogs I can find - and I'm already up to 50 but clearly I'd like your help to get any I've missed.

My criteria for inclusion are the blog must be focused on the environment or written by someone who is active in Green Politics (so there are quite a few Green Party councilors with blogs - I'm not going to check them for how much they talk about windfarms) they must be reasonably upto date (if the last post was in July you ain't getting in the best 100) they should qualify as a blog rather than a website or PR for a company, although obviously group blogs are acceptable.

Iain marked the blogs as follows "each blog out of ten on the following 10 areas: design; frequency of posting; writing ability; personality; comment; humour; range; interaction; popularity; independence of thought. This generated a mark out of 100" and I think the only way to be fair is to stick to this (pretty reasonable) format and do it properly. So, for example, if your blog looks terrible you will get zero for design (he said having looked at some of the 50 in utter disbelief and despair!)

If you go down the right hand column you'll find a list of green blogs - if you know of anyone missing from this who is from the UK, still posting to their blog and identifiably in the green spectrum let me know either in the comments box or by email. I'm quite looking forward to this.

Top five left field posts I've read today

In no particular order

Funniest: Hecklescakes has wise words about the Pope

Most challenging / provoking: Dave's Part on Darfur

Most heart rending: Save Kobra Rahmanpour from execution

Most surprising use of the historical lessons of Sparta: At Social Dynamism

Best post title: Blahfeme on the ideal capitalist weight

CEN watch: terrorism boardgame branded "sick"

I'm very impressed, the Cambridge Evening News has devoted it's front page, plus the centre page spread plus the comment column to a boardgame. Slow news day?

'Terrorism boardgame branded "sick"' screams the front page. Inside we have 'Victim's anger over terror boardgame' 'Just a game or dicing with death?' and the rather confusing 'Terror is not just a game to play at' - what? We can't just treat it as a hobby but a way of life?

I particularly enjoyed Tory MP Jim Paice's reaction where he says "I don't like the sound of it" Don't you Jim? Dear me, rum do.

One of the things I like about the game is that it isn't just a propaganda point saying "war on terror, what a farce" which would hold the attention for several seconds, and no more, but makes serious points whilst be a jolly good game.

Yes, it's in your empire's short term interests to fund terrorism, but what happens in the long term? Those terrorists that suited your purpose so well yesterday are now a major problem. Who could they be thinking of? I also like the fact they play with the terms like evil and liberation - because how else are we ever going to start thinking about what these terms really mean?

There's also a neat trick I've never come across before where if your empire begin to crumble and you think you may lose you can "turn terrorist" redefining what's happening in the game and possibly pointing out that the fall of the Eastern Bloc was not the end of history - but the beginning of a new and more unstable phase in the game.

As the blurb says "Designed as a serious challenge to the counter-productive pursuit of the so-called 'War on Terror', but also as a fun, family game to be played with Granny on Boxing Day. When a boardgame includes Suicide Bomber cards, Dirty Bombs, Nuclear Weapons and a balaclava with the word "Evil" stitched across the forehead, you know you’re in for a quality evening's entertainment."

The CEN are running an on-line poll right now with the question "Do you think War on Terror: The Boardgame is offensive?" I voted no, what will you vote here? (Current stats say 61% disagree with the CEN and DO NOT think it's offensive)

Link: War on terror: the boardgame (read the blog for current adventures)
CEN: Just a game or dicing with death? (the best bit of coverage now available)
Write to CEN: mailto:letters@cambridge-news.co.uk

Holy Shit: It's in the Sun, and The International Herald Tribune, and The Evening Standard (great pic!)
Double Holy Shit: Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Mail (with reference to the Pope!) oh and you can comment online

The war as a single issue

"A bayonet is a weapon with a working man at either end. Betray your country, serve your class and don't go off to war my friend." The words of the fine Scottish socialist John Maclean during the first world war (and now turned into a song) and I think it's fair to say these are sentiments that define left wing anti-imperialism.

The anti-war movement is of course far broader than that. When two million marched in London on Feb 15th all those years ago there were probably as many reasons to oppose the war as there were demonstrators.

Some believed the government was lying about the threat, some thought a war for oil was not worth fighting, some saw this as a war against predominantly Muslim countries, some thought British soldiers should not risk their lives for other people's problems and others thought that violence and war is wrong out of principle.

The fact that the anti-war movement embraced these strands, and a host of others I've not mentioned, was certainly a source of strength rather than weakness. An ideologically pure movement against the war would have been as insignificant as it was reactionary.

So how do we marry together the character and analysis of a left anti-imperialism and all these strands of thought that will share some parts of the critique and wildly diverge elsewhere. The two dangers are clear - either we end up excluding those who are genuinely opposed to the war on the basis of a real political disagreement, effectively becoming gatekeepers to the movement, or we submerge our ideas within a safer, more respectable milieu, which would be less challenging but also dishonest and risks turning a movement into a dull and bland slogan shop.

I'm thinking about this because of military families against the war a campaign supported by the Stop the War Coalition which is going to be standing single issue anti-war candidates against New Labour Ministers at the next election (which is some way off thankfully).

Their website understandably reflects where they are coming from and includes phrases like "The soldiers in Iraq and their families at home have the most at stake in this conflict" "Their patriotism is being abused" and they announce proudly that they will be at front of the StWC march.

Now whilst I'm glad these families are standing up and making life difficult for the government I'm also mulling over some of the complications that are as yet undiscussed.

Firstly, should we be treating the war as a single issue campaign? Are we generalising anti-war feeling into something broader or are we narrowing anti-imperialism into a 'safer' and more limitted stream? My particular concern here is that the left ends up holding people back from drawing anti-capitalist conclusions, or at least tells them that "there is a time and a place" and that we should only concentrate on those issues where the majority of the population agrees with us.

Secondly, the logic of a campaign that focuses on military families draws the eye away from the consequences of the military actions and focuses on the welfare of UK soldiers. I'm unhappy with that. One of the reasons I'm unhappy with the anti-Vietnam war films like Platoon and Full Metal Jacket - great films that they are - they essentially say "It was not nice to be a US soldier in Vietnam" and a rounder or more internationalist approach cannot confine itself to this, although I'm happy for it to be a part of the argument.

We have a series of imperialist wars, fought by predominantly working class armies that have created a nightmare in the regions they are visitted upon. These imperialist armies are the sharp end of the problem.

I think it's important to recognise that when a group forms that specifically endorses the army some of us on the left are not going to say "oh great". I kinda of feel they are asking me to forget all the principles and beliefs that led to oppose the war in the first place. I don't think I can do that.

I don't support the army.

I sympathise with the position many service men find themselves in but at the same time I want the US and UK goverments to be driven out of their imperialist ventures and therefore if my hopes are to be realised many of "our boys" may have to die. I don't celebrate it - but I also find it difficult to feel bad when I hear UK soldiers are having a hard time in Afghanistan. They should be having a hard time. This is a good thing.

There is a very interesting interview at Renegade Eye with Hamid Taqvaee on the Third Camp Manifesto where he says that "As far as I remember, since the start of my political life, I have heard this sort of position from anti-imperialist activists. They ask 'What is the main problem?' but never ask for whom and in what context. They imply that there is one main problem for every single person in our era. "

I think this is important for a nuanced critique. I do not support an idealised resistance and I certainly believe that many of those who act in its name (or one of its names I should say perhaps) are reactionary, counterproductive and should also be opposed. But the US and UK governments need to pay a heavy price for their mistakes so that the withdrawal of troops does not simply free them up for the next adventure but they leave with their tail between their legs cringing and twitching at the thought of invading new countries.

Thirdly, the nature of the anti-war movement has always been contested. Is it the StWC? Well some people think it is but I believe it to be a broad movement rather than a coalition of tendencies, branches and groupings. I think the movement's very diversity and breadth is a source of strength and what made the movement as influential as it is. I think it's disrespectful to turn these people into someone else's stage army - no matter how great their contribution has been.

But whilst some see the movement as linear they (accidentally?) invent centralised hierarchies for that movement. So there is a list of ten to twenty big names who are *the* anti-war speakers nationally, even though in reality there are hundreds of big names who oppose the war. The military families have become an *unassailable* element in the movement, they will head the march on the Labour Party conference next Saturday - I'm very uncomfortable with that. I think it prevents discussion and growth - and distorts the core issues of the wars.

When Reg Keys or Rose Gentle stand they do so as the "real" anti-war movement as such. They are given moral weight by both the movement and importantly by the media, because it suits the media to say the main difficulty with these wars is how they effect us. I think this pushes us towards the idea that the main problem for the war is the that Brits suffer. I find this problematic.

For me the anti-war movement needs to move away from;

a) sloganeering
b) hierarchies / centralisation
c) the submerging of the character and principle of those who oppose the war into a homogenous, safe and respectable campaign.

These Military Family campaigns ARE a valuable contribution to the anti-war movement but I'm concerned that by giving a priveleged place in the movement to any one section we are actually weakening the movement and giving the appearance that we have less to say than we actually do.