Unlucky 15

I feel the pressure, and am unable to resist posting on the Iranian hostage situation. Terry Jones has an excellent piece in the Guardian today (here) where he rages about "compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head?"

The hypocrisy over the whole incident is plain to see and International Rooksbyism and Lenin's Tomb both make interesting points about the way the episode is being treated in the British press.

Ed Rooksby says "I've found the reporting of the 'hostage crisis' over the past few days intensely irritating. For one thing - and let's get this straight - for the moment, they're not 'hostages', they're prisoners. To say that is not to lend any justification to Iranian actions (we don't know who's right about the measurement of territorial boundaries), but it is to use a rather more impartial term. But the word 'hostage' fits the narrative better - since, as we all know, the Iranians just can't help taking hostages. History shows. They're always taking hostages. It's what they do. They don't need a reason. They take hostages because they're uncivilised and volatile and they hate, hate, hate. All this is implied - it's there under the surface - in media reports. The British military's story is taken at face value, while the Iranian version of events - that British military personnel were arrested for making an incursion into Iranian waters - is treated with high scepticism."

Lenin adds that "A hostage is a person given or held as security for the fulfillment of certain conditions or terms, promises, etc., by another. No demands, conditions or terms have yet been raised by Iran, to my knowledge. Yet, of course, the use of the term indicates the widespread acceptance of the British government's narrative: if the arrested are "hostages", then clearly there is no sense in which the arrest can have been legitimately made in Iranian waters. (Or perhaps, more insidiously, the story of Iranian Guilt is such that even if they were in Iranian territory, they have no rights to control over that territory. Their sovereignty is always de facto in question, something that might be compromised at any time by an invasion or air strikes, or the use of terror squads)."

The Void wonders if the reason the Brits had slipped across the border was to avoid a smoking ban. As we can see our chaps are now happily puffing away. God bless 'em.

My Random Thoughts wonders whether the leadership in Iran knew anything about the taking of the UK Naval personnel at all until well after it happened. Dunno, maybe.

Craig Murray on the other hand focuses on how a misunderstanding over who's territorial waters you might be in could arise. He also sensibly muses that "No solution is possible if either side continues to insist that the other is completely in the wrong and they are completely in the right. And the first step towards finding a peaceful way out, is to acknowledge the self-evident truth that maritime boundaries are disputed and problematic in this area. "

Ex-Labour MP Jane thinks that it's a shame that the press who are harping on about the legality of the operations the Navy were on did not have such concerns over a prior illegal operation in Iraq. Good point.

Jon on the other hand seems to feel that Iran has been put in a position where it has nothing to lose - so why not escalate? Why not take UK soldiers captive? It's hardly a secret that the US and all the allies it can rope in may be coming over the border in rather stronger force than a boat with 15 people in it quite soon. Haven't we put them in a position where they have little to lose?

Anyway, whatever the blogosphere thinks my thoughts are this; This is the perfect opportunity for Bush and co to argue for invasion and they are steadfastly ignoring it. The US support for the Brits has been luke warm at best and the EU and the Security council don't give a toss. This incident is making it clearer every day that an invasion of Iran is not immanent. The Western Allies aren't ready and are unlikely to rise to the provocations of the Iranian government - even though it smarts.

Having said that - please give them back Mr. A. you're worrying my Mum.

Activists and civilians

I've been musing about the gap between "ordinary people" and political activists and I've got some scrappy thoughts about some of the inherent contradictions contained within the relationship between people who are politically active and those who support their aims, in general, but are not currently able or willing to take an active role in shaping the movement.

I guess the first thing to say is that the distinction is not necessarily one of informed and uninformed individuals. Often those who are not active have been involved in some protest or political event at some point in their lives, and of course some of them are ex-activists themselves.

Also in terms of political education non-activists have not been living in a cave. They've been reading books, watching TV and arguing with their friends. Big political events may well have politicised them - but not necessarily in a way that brings them out leafleting. A lot of the time lefty non-activists know more about a subject than the people actually organising on the issue.

But where people are not consistently politically engaged the likelihood of an uneven development in their political consciousness is far greater than with the political activist. Whilst the activist has to, necessarily, deal with a number of subjects and will come across those who don't agree, the anti-war sympathiser on the other hand will not have had to think about how these views fit with other issues like capitalism, race, the environment or class. Of course political consciousness can be *too* even can't it? Too homogeneous. Too party line. Too party speak even.

The activist is also drawn into a number of questions of technique that the arm chair politico does not have to consider. When writing a leaflet what do we say? Do we denounce big business when organising a party against racist attacks? Do we call for the victory of Hezbollah when denouncing the actions of Israel? If we go "too far" we may put off those who would naturally support the aims of the specific action we're building - if we don't go "far enough" perhaps we're dumbing down and not being honest about our own politics. Whilst the non-activist simply thinks what they think.

This can be especially difficult because you could be trying to cater to an audience that you literally never see all in one place. That makes it very hard to ask them and you end up imagining what they might think - which easily leads to self censorship. Added to the problem is that any leaflet is going to leave some potential supporters cold, critical or crimson with rage whilst appealing to others.

The other difficulty is that the arguments going on in activist circles are fairly likely to be rather different to those in the wider public. Various Trotskyists groups may have had heated debates over whether the slogan should be "troops out" or "troops out now" but the majority of those who see the placards will not register the distinction. So whilst the activists are getting heated over what may or may not be a important point the public will simply be focused on the argument against the war.

There's a very interesting piece written a couple of years ago on activistism, which I heartily recommend to anyone involved in building radical activity. The phenomenon which the authors describe is that where activism becomes completely cut off from the outside world and is simply performing functions that serve their own needs rather than address the real political issues. "This brave new ideology combines the political illiteracy of hypermediated American culture with all the moral zeal of a 19th-century temperance crusade."

The authors even haul in that old ideological war-horse, Adorno, to say that this part of the progressive movement "refuses to reflect on its own impotence". Damning stuff, and all too obvious for those who like to reflect and think *as well as* be involved in political activity.

It's not just a problem for the left of course. You can see this problem with previous Tory leaders who have hyped up the dread of immigration because it plays well with their own troops, but it has left those outside the blue circle utterly unmoved. It seems to me that half of Blair's speeches in the last four years or so have been addressed directly at those who still want to support a Labour Government rather than attempting to persuade the critics.

Likewise on the left we can get lost inside our own ideological worlds whilst the rest of the human race are left a little puzzled. A great example of this is the majority of socialist papers who seem to have a zealous adherence to speaking in a particularly *convinced* way leaving no room to breath let alone think. These papers are virtually unreadable at times and certainly do not come across as reliable news sources because it is absolutely inconceivable that any news that does not fit with their world view could even get into the pages of the paper. These papers are only really suitable to innoculate the troops against outside ideas.

It's a big subject that can't possibly be tackled in one post - but that tension between activists trying to push the debate forwards and organise concrete action and those that they seek to pull out onto the streets or persuade of their point of view is not something we can wish away - but it is something we should be aware of.

Five spots from the blogosphere

Five things I spotted from the blogosphere.

First, we have the bizarre coincidence of the Miss Bolivia winners 1993 and 1988 getting in trouble with the law at the same time. 1988 was deported from the US and 1993 has been seized smuggling cocaine. Ah, where did it all go wrong? Jim Shultz carries the full story here.

Incidentally, looking at the website there seems a striking similarity between all the Miss Bolivia contestants... and it isn't a resemblance to anyone related to Evo Morales.

Then we have the problem of whether the man who brought you the wonderful Dilbert cartoons is necessarily the guy you'd trust to give good advice on improving your sex life. It just seems there might be others better suited to the task, that's all I'm saying.

Daniel's been musing about drugs, and the society in which we take them. Well, not me obviously.

Juan Cole, as ever, is excellent on what's happening - right now - in Iraq.

Finally, sick of being ribbed about your bag not being *manly* enough? Well, at last the web has provided the answer! Courtesy of inventorspot. Of course I'm not sure all of them might do the trick - but I've pictured the one that shows you're into sports. How manly is that?

Okay, that's enough of that.

Mountains to climb

Last blog on Green Party conference I promise! Things have been hectic since I got back and had to worry about my Dad who was admitted to hospital with a mystery problem so I'm a touch behind. Apologies.

There are several lasting images of the Swansea conference that will be lodged in my mind for some time to come.

Firstly my wonderful hosts that I stayed with, Jan and Andy, who were welcoming above and beyond the call of duty. Of course, I will look back on shame on the fact that (sleeping in a bunk bed) I somehow managed to tip the whole thing down on top of me when getting up in the morning. Ouch.

Also the fact that they live on top of a *mountain* when the conference was down by the beach gave me one of the most murderous walks home I've ever encountered. Half way back I came to the bottom of a *thing* called Constitution Hill which stretched upwards before me at what, I swear, was something like a 45% angle. By the time I was at the top I was praying for a swift dose of pneumonia to finish me off.

Of course the view of Swansea bay was beautiful, although difficult to appreciate whilst clutching your chest and gasping for dear life.

Another memory that will scar me is the review. This is the cruel and unusual punishment where Green Party delegates get up and perform their party pieces, or little skits based on the goings on of the conference. There were some highlights. The choir was very accomplished (on the whole, cough, cough) and the conference mix where the sound guy had recorded the speeches and then sampled and spliced it together was very, very funny.

Alas it was not all of this quality and I was left clutching my stomach as it spasmed with a mixture of horror and laughter at some of the turns people thought was appropriate to do in a public place. I mean, yes, they are very brave for doing it and we're all friends but man... it was painful.

Green bloggers fringe was very enjoyable and I found it really useful. Myself, Natalie and Sue were supposedly keeping it together but the general discussions, questions and anecdotes made for a very enjoyable hour and a half. It also reminds me that the more you do the more people get you to do... a lesson I'm always forgetting, so I came out of the whole experience having found myself volunteered for a number of tasks - I better get on with them I guess.

On the politics I'm more than ever convinced that the Green Party is unequivocally progressive, democratically organised and punching well below its weight. That lack of traction between the leadership and the members, and the different views on what the Party is actually for really need addressing.

For me that means more involvement if I want to try to improve its direction and its ability to make things happen. That's a tall order, I'm quite comfortable as an independent activist and am enjoying my largely unlabelled socialist status. However, I guess there's no point in seeing a problem if you aren't going to contribute to fixing it.

What did you think?

Unfortunately I wasn't able to attend the final day so I'd be really interested to hear what people thought about that - or any other observations about conference.

How did it compare to Brighton? What did you think of the leadership debate? Where do we go from here?

I was really pleased with the emergency motion on defending council housing and that the motion I sponsored on ALMOs was passed... but how do we get councillors to go along with this?

Some Greens have already blogged on conference. Greenman, for example, talks about motions, and possible consequences of conference. Ruscombe Green talks about the localisation debates. Peter mentions the leadership debate. Noel Lynch talks about supermarkets and Mark talks about the Corrib project.

Let me know if you've blogged on this and I'll add you to the list.

Green Left Fringe

Saturday: The Green Left fringe at Swansea conference was held jointly with the Trade Union group and seemed very well attended. The two speakers were Derek Wall and Andy Johnstone, the head honcho of the Welsh T&G.

Unfortunately I missed Derek's contribution but Andy was a very interesting and open minded speaker. He spoke well on the problematic relationship that the union movement had with Labour and with a wry smile described Labour's term of office as "ups and downs" with the unions "trapped in a relationship" with the party of government.

He described Tony Woodley as a "man of great vision" to which I raised my eyebrows, but this aside Andy made some excellent points, particularly about the idea of reskilling workers, and changing what we produce as well as simply protecting workers rights.

In the car industry we need a little bit of "beating swords into ploughshares" and in order to do so the union movement needed to raise its game and the level of debate and struggle.

I raised a point about how we bring the trade union movement into the Green Party which had to involve taking the Green Party into the trade union movement. All too often Greens are well intentioned about the unions but they are rarely the first port of call when organising a campaign or giving support to those who are already fighting for a set of progressive politics.

We need to have engagement with the unions where we have common cause because it makes sense to combine out strengths where we agree, but we also need to engage where we have disagreements - and that needs discussing these points as friends. Where we argue over nuclear power or nuclear weapons for instance we can also link arms over the trade union freedom bill or defending the rights of agency workers.

What kind of party?

Saturday: The day of the big set piece battle. The previous couple of days had seen forces being mustered on either side and negotiations and maneuvering over the minor points and amendments to THE motion of the conference that everyone was excised about. D1: do we ballot the members on whether the Green Party should change it's structures to have a leader/deputy leader or co-leaders rather than the current system of principal speakers who have no vote on the executive?

I blogged on this before but to fill you in if you haven't read that post there is a long standing debate inside of the party on whether to have structures that the press can readily understand or pose ourselves as a party quite unlike the mainstream parties with their spin and undemocratic top down models.

Over at the New Statesman female Principal Speaker Sian Berry says that the current system is frustrating due to the difficulties the press have in understanding Green Party structures. "I come up against this all the time, and invariably find myself using up valuable broadcast time explaining the curious way I have to be described."

Derek, our other principal speaker (the one with the tie) on the other hand has a different view. He told the BBC that "the Greens should not be "sucked in" to having a figurehead like other parties... "I do think being called a leader has the potential to corrupt. I look forward to being replaced as principal speaker by someone better but I will mourn if speakers make way for old-style, ego-led political figures. I have no easy answers, I won't tell you any comforting lies but I know my history and I can recognise a trap however well disguised."

One of my concerns had been that this debate in particular would see tempers frayed and problems with delegates behaviour. However, it was one of the most fraternal debates I've ever seen in a political organisation when there are such deeply entrenched positions on both sides.

One of the reasons for this is undoubtedly a lot of work had gone in beofre hand to achieve concensus over at least parts of the motion. Also the motion was to consult, debate and then ballot the membership - not to change the structures from this conference. There were people on the "no to a leader" side who found this idea rather appealing as a way of popularising and discussing how the Greens do politics with people both inside and outside of the party.

On this I completely agree and it was the reason I ended up voting with the motion (which passed *reasonably* easily) without actually having to make my mind up yet on how I would actually vote comethe ballot. As an opportunity to discuss how its possible to do politics from the base up it becomes rather exciting, rather than a dry debate about internal structures.

The amendments, of course, were not so cut and dried. Some slipped through uncontesciously - like A3 inserting the sentence "We reject the hierarchical structure of leaders and followers." Which is a curious clause to have in a motion about adopting a leader, but I like it.

We also voted to scrap the list of inspirational figures, which I pointed out earlier was not well thought out. Motions to delay the ballot or raise the bar rather high (like having to have 3 MPs) were squashed quite unceremoniously although the consultation was lengthened which meant that there was both more time for a proper detailed debate and also that the process would not clash with the re-election of our current post holders.

A motion that the "leaders" have no vote on GPEx clearly fell with Caroline Lucas arguing that the leader can't be accountable if they are not responsible for any decisions. It seemed a good point.

The absolutely disgraceful amendments that you could only stand for these positions if you'd only been a member for ten or eight years (or that they already be an elected MP or MEP) found no favour with anyone at all and it was rather curious that you had people ostensibly arguing for a non-hierarchical structure that only a small elite could take part in. Hmmm. Of course it leads to the suspicion that it was a wrecking amendment designed to make the motion fall and rightly delegates had no truck with that sort of thing.

In the end what we had was a politcal debate where attempts to play silly buggers were mercifully small, and where they did occur they were given short shrift. People take their party seriously, and want to promote radical politics rather than engage in a prolonged faction fight. Excellent.

Wallberries

Friday and Saturday: Derek Wall and Sian Berry, joint principal speakers for the Green Party, gave their first ever keynote speeches to conference in their new positions too which they were elected late last year.

Both are left-wing greens but both have very different styles and emphasis and it was interesting hearing their speeches - Derek on Friday and Sian on Saturday.

Derek spoke strongly and noticeably without notes, although I feel obliged to point out he was wearing the most extra-ordinary tie I have ever seen. It was clear from the beginning he had no intention of making a safe, inoffensive speech too bland to be worth listening to. He wanted to emphasis "disturbing thoughts".

He started his speech by immediately referring to 'catastrophe' and focusing on the problems facing the world and the green movement. In fact this was probably the most controversial aspect of his speech with a number of people I spoke to afterwards concerned that the Greens are too often associated with doom and gloom rather than positive approaches and solutions.

I tend to agree on the point, but Derek carried it off well and it was a good antidote to the patience and respectableness of those who perhaps are not fully engaged with the seriousness of the current global problems.

Again Derek was broad in his approach - denouncing imperialism, talking about the trade union freedom bill, calling for direct action against Exxon and Gordon Brown's budget asking us to work more, commute more, in fact do everything damaging more - and in essence deepen pour unhappiness.

He said "Brown may have commissioned the Stern report, but there's little evidence that he's actually read it." He also had a few good quips in there, I particularly liked the one where he described carbon offsets as planting a tree on stolen land whilst mainlining petroleum.

The second criticism of Derek's speech was that some people thought that it didn't feel like a speech just weeks before an election in which the whole party was supposed to be mobilised. I think that's true to an extent, but I also think taken together, as a team, where Derek provided some intellectual and well thought out meat, Sian gave us upbeat electoral ambition and enthusiasm. One of the advantages I suppose of not having a single figure head.

Sian emphasised how, at the ballot box, we're given alternatives between different shades of grey - but the mainstream politicians have begun to understand that green issues are good for votes. But as she said "green is not a sharp new suit you can wear" and if we wanted politicians who were committed to social justice and combating environmental destruction then we need the real deal - not someone whose focus group tells them to look green this week.

Sian, like Derek, wanted to start a debate in the party - but Sian's vision was about the party contesting each and every seat at the next general election in England and Wales. She compared the fact that at the last local elections we contested one in eight seats and the last general one in three. For her, if we are to be seen as a real national force that means giving everyone in the country the opportunity to vote for a Green.

As I say, this might be a bit electoral for some - me included - and she was setting the bar high - but that was what her speech was for. Whilst Derek gave us something to think about Sian was giving the Party something to do. I thought these messages complimented each other well, particularly when taken with Rhodri's speech on Thursday placing us firmly as a radical, progressive party - committed to working class people and addressing the real problems we face in our everyday lives.

After thought: Just a note to remind people that last year at Brighton there was a row about the election, which Derek went on to win. At the time I said that "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" and I think Derek conference speech demonstrates that to be true.

There was a concensus that this was a good speech, even from those who did not vote for him - but how well received would this important key note speech have been if the members had not had the opportunity to vote for their prefered candidate? It's clear the decision that was taken was the best one for the party - and therefore totally correct.

One year or two?

Friday: Well, I've broken the ice and made my first speech to conference floor. Speaking to a constitutional motion that, although it won a majority of 98 to 56 did not win the 2/3rds required to pass. Ah, I've had worse.

The motion in question was about opening up party structures reducing the restrictions on joining GPEx (the national executive) and bringing it in line with the restrictions on standing for general election. The short motion essentially brought the bar down from having to have been a member of the party for two years in order to stand for election to GPEx to one.

My points were simple. First of all this motion (D3) dealt with eligibility to stand for election rather than proposing people just go on the exec willy nilly (there had been some mention of the idea of people being 'parachuted in'), as green issues come to the fore more and more people will join the party bringing with them talent, enthusiasm, commitment and a wealth of experience.

Whilst GPEx is not the only way that members can help a party, at times the members of the party may well find newer members' skills and capabilities useful on that body. The movers of the motion (myself included) do not believe such people should be debarred from standing for GPEx. Members should be allowed to consider them.

I feel pretty strongly that parties should not have classes of membership and you are either a member or you aren't - so anything that restricts party members from playing a full and equal role in the party makes me feel uncomfortable to be honest.

Unfortunately, my arguments were not enough, oh well.

Shaking up politics

Friday: Well, that was the ironic subtitle of the session on democracy and localisation in which one, two, three, FOUR people fell asleep simultaneously... and snored! How the poor speakers coped with the gurgling, moaning sounds of the sleepers coupled with the rather childish giggling going on round the room I'll never know. Well done them.

It wasn't as if it was a particularly boring session or anything and both speakers from Make Votes Count gave strong, workmanlike talks, although, if I were to criticise them, they probably did speak for too long and not leave enough time for a good debate which I expect contributed to the soporific effects of the session.

I found the session particularly interesting, what with my interest in democratic systems, and the effects of the two tier system that they use in Wales and Scotland (a kind of partial PR) that lead to tensions between the First Past The Pot AMs and the list AMs seems to be something that rarely, if ever, discused.

What surprised me was that even the Tory Party in Wales now call for electoral reform of local government, obviously there experience of the Welsh Assembly has not been a bad as they had feared. Goodness, even dinosaurs can change.

Interestingly, parties like the Lib Dems who have a formal commitment to PR seem to forget this whenever they find themselves in a position of power due to FPTP elections, like in Cambridge, and you'll be hard pressed to find a Lib Dem advocate of local reform.

One of the things the sleep club could really have done with, which the lack of discussion probably contributed to was actual content to the political discussion. For instance the speakers mentioned the effect on turnout without discussing the context of three party consensus. Welsh Assembly elections may still have poor turn out but no matter what the system we're still voting for the same old grey parties.

One core argument against a more proportional system is that far right parties will make gains under this kind of system, but actually I think the reverse is true. Where have the BNP made the majority of their gains? In areas where the Labour Party has had an unassailable majority and so the voters have been taken for granted. Sometimes the BNP are the first party to be seen in an area for twenty years.

With a system that meant the parties actually had to have the support of the electorate everywhere perhaps large numbers would not feel so disenfranchised. Perhaps the main parties wuld also begin to pay a little more attention to working class people rather than their bosses. We live in hope.

This seems an important point to me anyway. Otherwise its just about statistics not the passion to fundamentally change society, making it more democratic, our institutions more representative and to shift away from the dirty and dangerous political system we have iin the UK at present - one that even the EU is investigating so disturbed are they by the way its currently operating.

Democracy at conference

Thursday: Having a, cough, "history" on the far left I've been to a fair few conference in my time and so one of the novel things about Green Party conference is the way in which it is actually organised in an open and democratically accessible manner.

Although some conference goers complain about this or that decision or allude to the Party becoming less accountable it always has to be seen in the context that these people are not only given ample space to debate and raise their points it is a norm of conference that delegates have a great deal of control over how it is structured.

Obviously this process starts well before conference begins but I'll just mention how this works on the first day of conference. SOC is the body that does the main organising and arranging of conference and it issues a written report to conference (which you can read online).

Delegates are then free to come and discuss this in a workshop lasting an hour and twenty minutes, and they do. They support, oppose, and attempt to amend the report - and consequently the way conference is run. No shadowy Conference Arrangements Committee with a commitment to call exactly who it wants to call and do as it pleases.

Thursday morning there were eight amendments to the report all of which were hotly contested and then brought to a full conference session later in the day. Conference as a whole then discussed at length the various decisions that had been made on its behalf and made decisions on whether they supported them.

So, some amendments had been ruled out of order the proposers wanted them ruled back in. We could all read what they were before hand as even these motions were carried in the conference handbook. We voted 54% to 46% to rule them back onto conference floor.

Three amendments to the report that SOC vehemently opposed were carried easily. Three others were defeated easily and a rather tricky motion on how we were to take the leadership debate ended up as 71 for 88 against and one abstention.

I'm not filling you in on the detail because I think these are all crucial decisions but to demonstrate how a conference can be run democratically using a minimum of conference time (although the discussion could have gone on for a week) and that f various positions put their point of view sometimes they win and sometimes they lose... what's to complain about there. The context of this decision making process means that every delegate has the opportunity to put in a lot, a little or no effort into how their conference is run - and that progressive politics has to have democratic structures at its heart.

The personal behaviour of delegates can, at times, be problematic but so far this conference has been mercifully political in its disagreements, rather free from hidden factions or dominating control of the central organisers, much to their frustration. Although, rather embarressingly, the soundman did have a strop at one point and turn off the mikes which was absolutely surreal - I couldn't even work out what he'd got angry about... but this was the exception, not the rule.

Opening Conference: Rhodri Griffiths

Thursday: An excellent and interesting start to conference with Rhodri Griffiths, one of the leading Welsh Greens and potentially the first Green Welsh Assembly Member.

Speaking in confident, calm and measured tones Rhodri came across as a level headed, sensible but passionate politician. One of the interesting things about the way he framed the debate was that he was firmly positioning himself in the context of the historic shift inside of the Labour Party away from the gains of Social Democracy.

Whilst Labour had once been a party of radical change, in terms of votes for women, the national health service and nationalisation of the railways we now have a party that sees everything ass a business opportunity, including global warming with the leader of Labour in Wales having recently waxed lyrical on the benefits climate change could bring to Wales.

Keir Hardy may once have been a pioneer of radical reform but now, accord to Rhodri, it is left for a progressive party like the Greens to push for real change and that it is the Green that must be the new voice of radical politics.

Nice start to conference positioning the Greens well to the left of Labour and as the defender of public services.

Community meeting - not bad

Really interesting community meeting last night (I blogged previously about the pre-publicity) lots of positive things to say about what could have been a total dog's breakfast. Well organised, sincere and (despite the leaflet) most people in the room did not think that the apocalypse had come early.

There were over fifty people in attendance, and when you think of the fact this was a meeting called on just a few specific streets in the area that's a very impressive turnout. The police called it "significant" although were reluctant to reveal how many other such meetings had been called in recent months, which immediately made me interested about what on earth he might be hiding.

What was clear was there had been a real spate of low level crime and annoyances in a specific part of our area. A part that appears to be a bit of a nexus of meeting points for various 'late night' routes across town. Very unpleasant and intimidating for those involved and also almost completely invisible to those living just one or two streets away.

An interesting (to me) aspect of many of these issues revolves around the fact that we're living on terraced streets that were built well before cars, recycling bins and the hundreds of chained up bicycles, which creates issues that never existed before - and certainly pavements tightly hedged in by parked cars and littered with boxes full of glass bottles does present the opportunities for the annoyed drunk on his way home from the grotty pub that may not always be of an entirely community spirited nature. Some of these issues we can do little about, but some perhaps we can try to address.

Personally, although I had misgivings, I was determined to listen to the actual experiences of those in the meeting, after all this was the first time I'd met a good deal of my neighbours and I'm not going to start our relationship by saying I don't care your wing mirror has been smashed off. Even when I don't. Although I do. A bit.

Contributions were consistently focused on what the community could do for itself and ranged from possibly rather unrealistic solutions involving webcams, everyone being issued with whistles and mobbing a horrible little pub that lurks not far from here. What I liked about these contributions, even when I disagreed with them, or thought they were impractical, was that they focused on how *we* could do something to improve *our* neighbourhood rather than calling on the council for more police, ASBOs or CCTV.

There were other concerns raised about speed limits (and the kids round here do seem oblivious sometimes of the dangers of being squashed by cars), the need to liaise with a local youth project and notifying the council when things need repairing. Pretty difficult to disagree with any of that really.

The meeting was definitely helped along by the fact there were some excellent contributions that specifically focused on the idea of building community and the positive alternatives rather than focusing on negative, divisive and possibly ineffective solutions. One woman made an excellent contribution about the leaflet, describing it as the Daily Mail coming through her door and although she was heckled a bit her point was actually that the meeting was much better in tone that the propaganda.

One of the interesting things about the contributions of the police and the council was the, not so unclear, undercurrent of "we aren't going to give you anything." The cops told us that there had been 24 crimes and 31 reported incidents in the area since Jan 1 2006 (which even I could see was massive under reporting, even for a safe area like this one), and the council guy excitedly reported that they had made six, count them six, arrests of graffiti artists in Cambridge.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it ANARCHISM!

There's going to be an ongoing momentum to build on the sense of community that's come out of the meeting, which is very positive and may include a street party, and it's also a good lesson to go into these things with an open mind - but I must say without the very positive contributions made by some of the audience members this meeting could have ended up launching some creepy neighbourhood watch committee or pseudo-vigilante group intent on victimising youths and the like.

Just goes to show - good people can make the world a better place.

Leading questions

One of the most hotly contested questions at the coming Green Party conference will be that of whether to have a leader(s). It's a question that has consistently arisen over the last few years and has very entrenched positions on both sides.

The motion in question calls for a binding ballot of the membership to once and for all settle the argument, there's even a petition for it here and Another Green World puts the other side here. A quick glance down the names on the first petition will reveal a) some silly entries and b) that signatories come from what could crudely be described as from both the left and right of the party.

The debate, in my opinion, is much more about attitudes towards elections than necessarily how progressive / reactionary a particular member is. As the petition says "we believe that the use of the term leader is a helpful and appropriate tool in helping us convince the public of the urgent need for a green society and a green world" In other words it's a tactical consideration and should be considered as such.

My natural inclination is to have some form of collective, democratically elected (and therefore accountable) body rather than invest too much prestige in one or two people. For instance I've spoken about the "leaders" of the anti-war movement here and here. However, I've got an open mind on the question and will be interested to see the arguments (and behaviour) on both sides of the debate.

As I understand it one of the main reasons for pushing the idea of (co)leader(s) is that there is a consistent confusion on the part of the press and the public over the current terms principal speakers, terms deliberately designed to promote the idea of an open and pluralist party. I don't know how significant that is and it's easy to find a scape goat for how little press minority parties get, but there may well be something in it.

There are a number of hostile amendments to the leadership motion, which as always makes me slightly tetchy. These include not bringing in the system until the Greens have three MPs, delaying the ballot to just before a possible general election, or a clause stating that someone has to have been in the party for eight or ten years before they can stand for the position, which reeks of contempt for the members of the party. There are also some useful additions and amendments, which I may or may not vote for, but clearly have a far more constructive intent.

There is an amendment, for instance, about the election for leader being every two years and in the intervening year having a vote of confidence. I'm not happy about this at all - I mean it's far more damaging for the members to vote non-confidence in their leaders than it is for them to simply select someone new. The press could portray, for instance, Derek's election as principal speaker as a sign that the Greens are moving to the left, whilst if we'd have had to no confidence Keith Taylor first they could portray the whole thing as the Greens falling apart, which we weren't. Personally I think that amendment would be a well intentioned mistake were we to pass it.

There's also an amendment calling for the introduction of Emmeline Pankhurst as an inspirational figure - surely that should be Sylvia? Emmaline supported the First World War and encouraged the giving out of white feathers to young men who weren't eager to die for the British Empire, apparently coming up with the natty slogan "intern them all". Which actually makes her the enemy and not very inspirational. I digress.

Whatever way the vote goes I hope the debate is conducted fraternally and seriously - with passion but without rancour. As I say I'm currently leaning towards opposing the motion - but as it's intent is for a ballot of the membership rather than jumping straight to have a leader then I'm very much open to the idea of a full and proper discussion in the party which perhaps ends this rather divisive topic, at least for the time being.

Things I'm not blogging about today

1. Junior Doctors and the NHS
2. Phone in polls (Blue Peter in particular)
3. The Eurovision song contest
4. Blair's appearance on comic relief.
5. John McDonnell potentially getting enough nominations to stand for Labour Leader.
6. St Patrick's Day
7. Zimbabwe's approach to democracy
8. Sian Berry as the Green London Mayoral candidate
9. The fact I can't be bothered to do a proper blog entry at the moment.

Caught in the vice

Readers outside of the Eastern region may be unaware that the Ipswich police have begun a "crack down" on prostitution in Ipswich involving the heavier use of council and police powers against anyone involved in the "industry" (for instance this).

Last night's local news featured a Labour councillor banging on at length on how he wished to eradicate all prostitution from Ipswich, for good. Good luck mate, although you may have to remove all the human inhabitants first to achieve that end. In fact it is not an insignificant flaw in the plan that what they hope to achieve cannot be achieved, as time will show.

The delusional councillor, David Ellesmere, said this was a "once in a lifetime" opportunity to rid the town of prostitution once and for all. He told the EADT "We've got to do as much as we can to help these women out of these difficult circumstances but if they have received the help and are still going out on the streets then you have got to look at Asbos." Is this a case of "You've had your biscuit now fuck off"?

The East Anglian Daily Times describes how the police and the council are planning the "biggest ever crackdown on prostitution". The plans include increased use of ASBOs, increasing use of new and existing CCTV cameras and focused police presence in areas associated with curb crawling.

Spokeswoman for the English Collective of Prostitutes Cari Mitchell (who had a long, excellent interview on the local news last night) told the EADT "We are horrified the authorities want to introduce a crackdown that has been shown to force women underground and make them more vulnerable to attack. Have no lessons be learned?"

The new measures have already seen sex workers rely increasingly on making contacts via mobile phones and taking less care and time over assessing clients before getting into their cars. Even if the crack down was only against the clients (which it isn't) it would still involve prostitutes having to take greater risks with their own safety in order to continue to work. As with so many such righteous crusades the effects so far have been to further marginalise some of the most vulnerable people in society at no discernable benefit to anyone.

The Suffolk Evening Star reports that local Reverend Andrew Dotchi has said that the criminalisation of sex workers does more harm than good. "It is very easy to say 'get the girls off the streets and you will solve the problem' but the fact remains that there are women in the town with poverty and abuse problems and there needs to be a much more intensive case work approach with women to help them...

"It is all very well to give someone an anti-social behaviour order or lock them away for six months but then their children go into care and we know that the majority of those on the fringes of society come from care. Over the years if you criminalise street workers and habitual drug users you perpetuate the problem and pass it on to the next generation.”

Attempts to "clean up" areas in this way never result in an overall improvement in society. They simply end up moving the workers elsewhere (like Norwich) or pushing the trade into more dangerous avenues. Hardly a satisfactory outcome.

One more reason why the unions shouldn't give money to Labour

One of UNISON's policies is an opposition to Trident. Another one of their policies is that if they sponsor MPs they get to influence policy and support MPs that will support the things the union believes in in Parliament.

Some UNISON sponsored MP's did vote with UNISON policy. They are;

Alan Simpson, Albert Owen, David Drew, David Heyes, Diane Abbott, Fabian Hamilton, Harry Cohen, Jeremy Corbyn, Jim Devine, Joan Walley, John McDonnell, Katy Clark, Kelvin Hopkins, Michael Meacher, Marsha Singh, Mike Wood, Paul Truswell and Richard Burden.

18 MPs fine and true.

Other UNISON sponsored MPs voted the wrong way;

Adam Ingram, Alan Whitehead, Andrew MacKinlay, Andrew Reed, Andy Burnham, Angela Eagle , Anne Moffat , Ben Chapman, Brian Donohoe, Charlotte Atkins, Dan Norris, David Anderson, David Blunkett, David Borrow, David Taylor, Dawn Primarolo, Des Browne, Diana Johnson, Eric Joyce, Fiona Mactaggart, George Mudie, Gerry Sutcliffe, Gilly Merron, Greg Pope, Hazel Blears, Helen Jones, Jane Kennedy, Jonathan Shaw, Judy Mallaber, Keith Vaz, Laura Moffatt, Linda Gilroy, Lyn Brown, Martin Salter, Mary Creagh, Meg Munn, Paddy Tipping, Patrick Hall, Sadiq Khan, Sharon Hodgson, Stephen Byers, Stephen Hepburn and Terry Rooney.

43 MPs squalid and vile.

Not good enough, not good enough at all. That's union members money going to support these people. And it's not like this is an aberration for most of them. David Blunkett, Keith Vaz, Hazel Blears, Stephen Byers... I mean aren't these the down the line enemies of public service workers?

UNISON (my union incidentally) needs to take a leaf out of the RMT's book who sponsor more Labour MPs now, after their expulsion from the party, than before - and now they actually get to support parliamentarians who support the aims of the union. That means no money for Prescott.

Unions, and the workers they represent, need a political voice and support on a selected basis for MPs and prospective MPs from a number of different parties is a very good idea. Support for the government come fair wind or foul is not. The point of political influence is for the union to influence legislation to the benefit of working people, not for the government to influence the union not to step out of line.

Hat tip: union futures

Cough, cough

Who'd have thought you could get pneumonia from a fire? It's one of those conditions that I associate as being like a terrible, even fatally bad, flu - but of course you can, as I can testify.

Due to great skill and cunning I managed to gulp down huge amounts of smoke on Saturday night and have been rather poorly ever since. I was going to the doctor's yesterday anyway so I mentioned it in passing. She asked me to take my shirt off (any excuse these people) and after a few seconds listening to my lungs I was given the rather surprising news and a slip of paper for Amoxicillin.

I'm looking on the bright side as always, it's a great excuse for all the things I haven't done. Pneumonia is one of those reasons you can give that don't usually get the reply "But can you still come leafleting tomorrow morning?" or "So *when* are you going to help me on my allotment then?" Although I must be careful not to milk it.

The real news is the other thing the doc told me about my much needed specialist appointment. Waiting list at Addenbrokes approx 52 weeks... that's, like, years! Just to see someone!

New Labour... I'm not happy about this "best year ever" thing. Not happy at all. It's not like you've even got pneumonia, which would at least have been an acceptable reason.

Words cannot express my... my... hmmm

I think it's fair to say that words cannot express the rage I feel over this ruling. Baha Mousa, 26, died whilst under arrest and under the questioning of six British soldiers. His body was found to have 93 separate injuries. The military court cleared five of them of all charges. The only soldier deemed to be at fault was the one who submitted a guilty plea to inhumane treatment of a prisoner.

As the Independent said (here) "The case... led to the disclosure that the Army high command had sanctioned brutal abuse of prisoners."

"The court martial heard that the detainees were beaten with bars, kicked, starved and forced to drink their own urine. They were kept hooded with hessian sacks in temperatures of 60C, made to maintain a stress position for hours and deprived of sleep. After 36 hours Baha Musa died, with 93 injuries to his body."

The Guardian notes that "Phil Shiner, the lawyer representing the family of Baha Mousa... said: "Mr Justice McKinnon found that the evidence was clear that these injuries were 'sustained as a result of numerous assaults over 36 hours by unidentified persons'. He said 'none of those soldiers has been charged with any offence simply because there is no evidence against them as a result of a more or less obvious closing of ranks'. It was in the words of one soldier witness a 'free for all'. It appears to be nothing less than systematic punishment on behalf of 1 QLR in the mistaken belief that these Iraqis were responsible for the death of one of the battalion."

No one gives evidence = innocence? The rules say we can beat a man to death with impunity so that makes it okay? I really don't think so...

Remember the Malvinas

Hola fellow Latin America followers. I've just recieved notice of this event, unfortunately at the weekend so I can't go but others may well be interested.

* Remembering the Malvinas in Argentine Literature and Film *

Saturday 17 March 9am-5pm at Stewart House, 32 Russell Square, London WC1

A one-day workshop featuring readings, papers and screenings to consider cultural representations of the Malvinas conflict, in the year of its 25th anniversary. Co-organised by Dr Claire Lindsay (UCL), Dr Joanna Page (U. of Cambridge) and Dr Fernanda Peñaloza (U. of Manchester).

The event is open to all those with an interest in Argentine cultural representations of the Malvinas war, which is the theme of this particular event. We would ask participants to bear in mind that our purpose is to consider and debate cultural representations, rather than issues relating to sovereignty.

There is no cost for participation or for tea/coffee and the wine reception. Lunch is not provided, plenty of cafés and restaurants in the locality.

PROGRAMME

9.30-10.00 am Registration

10.00-10.40 am Nick Caistor, journalist and translator: The Blind leading the Snowblind (paper to include a reading from Malvinas Requiem, Nick Caistor's translation of Los pichiciegos, forthcoming with Serpent's Tail)

10.40-11.20 am Carlos Gamerro, writer, translator and critic: ¿Islas de mierda, llenas de pingüinos' (Cortázar)?: Imagining the Malvinas in fact and fiction (paper to include a reading from Las islas in Spanish)

11.50-12.45 pm Professor Bernard McGuirk, U. of Nottingham: It Breaks Two to Tangle: Political Cartoons of the Falklands-Malvinas Conflict.

2.15-3.30 pm Dr Joanna Page, University of Cambridge & Dr Claire Lindsay, University College London. Excerpts to be screened from Los chicos de la guerra (Bebe Kamín, 1984), La deuda interna (Miguel Pereira, 1988), Fuckland (José Luis Marqués, 2000) and Iluminados por el fuego (Tristán Bauer, 2005), with critical introductions to each film

3.30-4.00 pm: Dr Jens Andermann, Birkbeck College, University of London: Response (followed by general discussion)

4.20-5.00 pm Roundtable: Representations of the Malvinas in Argentine literature and film: Dr Fernanda Peñaloza, U. of Manchester; Dr Geoffrey Kantaris, U. of Cambridge; Dr Claire Lindsay, U. College London; Professor Bernard McGuirk, University of Nottingham; Dr Joanna Page, U. of Cambridge

5.00 pm Wine reception

If you go, let me know how it went. Particularly the wine.

Oh, and as an after thought if you're a Londoner there is some excellent Cuban Hip Hop touring the country at the moment with two leading Cuban groups Havana OBSESIÓN & LOS PAISANOS.

I got to see them in Cambridge for £2 but you'll have to fork out £10/£8 on Friday the 16th at ULU on Malet Street. If you need more details they're here. It's all good stuff.

Bolivia polls

Jim Shultz points to new polls out in Bolivia showing Morales has achieved a significant level of support.

Despite everything the backing for Morales stands at 64% (compared to 29% for Bush by US citizens) and this approval rating reaches as high as 91% in areas like El Alto. Just 32% disapprove of Morales.

More importantly, to my mind, is that 70% of Bolivians believe that the country is now less corrupt than it was a year ago, one of the key areas that the Morales government has been very keen to counter.

It's interesting to speculate what these figures might actually mean on the ground but it's pretty clear the right have not been making any headway with their ultra-militant behaviour of late.

Lord Giddens speaks

My bete noir and subject of my incredibly tedious university dissertation, Anthony Giddens, has an interesting piece on Comment is Free today about the pending debate and vote in the House of Lords about the reform of the House of Lords.

Giddens feels pessimistic about the chances of a majority of the Lords supporting anything except a wholly appointed House but although he is clearly in favour of reform he still doesn't want to go the whole hog and have a 100% elected chamber. It's these arguments, about holding back, I want to quickly address here today.

I think he is essentially making three points.

Firstly that a House of appointees has a range of expertise to scrutinise legislation that an elected house would not have. Well, to that I'd have to say that the House of Commons is packed full of lawyers, doctors, teachers, academics and people with all kinds of skills. Unfortunately that does not necessarily mean they want to pass worth while legislation.

It seems to me that Parliament as a whole has to debate a range of topics so diverse that it would be impossible to ensure that the necessary expertise was always present. That's why I'd be in favour of allowing "guest speakers" or "expert panels" to make contributions direct to the House as and when required (probably on invitation of a certain number of elected members).

After all if we start to select which experts are necessary and which not then we end up with a second chamber that has bishops in it but no travellers, high court judges but no seafarers. And just perhaps high court judges and bishops will end up voting on subjects to which their expertise (if any) has no bearing but conforms with an out dated and elitist pattern that such types may well adhere to. Witness fox hunting and the equalisation of the age of consent.

Giddens' second argument I find much more perplexing. A fully elected house would have *too much* democratic legitimacy (and therefore be a threat to the House of Commons). Well, I think democratic legitimacy is a good thing, not a bad one. There are plenty of countries around the world that have fully elected second chambers without the sky crashing in around their heads. You don't hear people from these countries saying "If only our second chamber wasn't so... so... legitimate." If we're going to aim to move towards a democratic society let's not leave the mud on our boots from when we were traipsing around in the undemocratic wilderness. Have some courage.

The last point Giddens has to make is probably the one I have most sympathy with. That by making appointments independently it allows the second chamber to step out of the party politics system. However, if it is a diversity of voices that we require perhaps electing the Lords on a regional PR system so the smaller parties and independents with minority support actually get represented in the House.

Indeed, House of Lords reform is also an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone and introduce an electoral method that allows parties with significant electoral support, but no decisive majority in a particular town, to get a voice and thereby help break up the stifling neoliberal consensus.

Floods in Bolivia

The unprecedented heavy rains that have been pouring onto Bolivia as part of El Niño have caused major rivers to burst their banks and left dozens dead and tens of thousands of people severely effected by flooding / homeless. On top of this large amounts of crops and cattle have been destroyed which will have drastic repercussions later in the year.

The governments of Cuba, Venezuela, Peru, Spain, Japan, Italy, US, Argentina, France and Chile have reportedly responded with aid including doctors, helicopters, temporary shelters and food although in a country like Bolivia with its endemic poverty these humanitarian gestures will fall sadly short.

President Evo Morales has stated that "There are countries who, in an excessive, uncontrolled manner, have implemented industrialisation policies and this has affected the planet and is ... destroying the environment and it is the poor countries that have to bear the brunt of it." Many of the poorest countries in the world are going to be the first to bear the brunt of climate change despite being the nations least responsible for green house gas emissions.

Whilst Channel Four mucks around with programmes that pretend these problems are some kind of elaborate hoax real people on the other side of the world are killed, rendered homeless or destitute. I mean, even the US government with all their vested interests not to do so now accept climate change as a reality... doesn't that tell these people something?

Do you feel afraid, anxious or worried? You shouldn't!

I had an interesting hand delivered letter drop through my letterbox today asking me "Do you feel afraid, anxious or worried?" and cordially inviting me to a "neighbourhood meeting" in order to help "turn this area around, turn it into a place we can all enjoy living in and feel safe in."

The police will be at the meeting to ensure no one robs us while we innocently go about our business and members of the council's anti-social behaviour team will also be in attendance, no doubt to ensure we all go through the chair when we speak. No misbehaving you at the back. Yes, you.

I'm all for people in the local area getting together to build something constructive and a bit of community spirit, but seeing as this is the safest town I've ever lived in I find it ludicrous being asked; "Are you fed up with disturbances, violence, theft, abuse, graffiti, littering, noise, "anti-social behaviour" in our area?... Are you concerned for your kids safety?" Well, the answer is no. I'm not fed up with things that either hardly ever happen or are so irrelevant that they don't even impinge on my consciousness.

Of course, like all reasonable people, if I were to see a criminal-type engaged in littering this green and pleasant land I would birch the bugger and be done with him, just as I know you would dear reader, but let's keep things in proportion.

Why am I being sent a letter that is deliberately attempting to make me feel frightened in a low crime area? This is probably the nicest part of Cambridge to live in (although certainly not the poshest). These people need to get out more... but of course they can't because they've triple locked themselves in haven't they, for fear of all the foreigners, students, and gay people loitering around just waiting for an opportunity to make a "disturbance".

A gang of us will be going to this meeting to propose group hugs, relaxing meditation sessions and suggest we don't erect the razor wire just yet to keep out all those imaginary unsavory types. We don't need more police patrols, we don't need any crack downs and we certainly don't need a bunch of council bureaucrats issuing ASBOs like there's no tomorrow.

We need to enjoy ourselves more. We are much more likely to deepen community spirit when we do something positive than if we start peeping out of our windows with our camouflage binoculars and tutting at the local "youth" (who's name is Sam).

I don't want anyone to "turn this area around" because it's the one part of Cambridge that actually has some semblance of community spirit and diversity. I already enjoy living here and like most people feel completely and utterly safe.

All areas have crime but these people look like they are on the war path and are as likely to create divisions in the community as any improvements. They are clearly idiots and must be hugged immediately.

Northern Ireland election

Yesterday's election results from Northern Ireland make interesting reading, despite no major changes.

It's no surprise that the DUP and Sinn Fein came first and second (in that order), both increasing their number of seats, whilst the UUP and SDLP have both slipped back, again.

However, it is on the fringes that all the action is taking place. Dr Kieran Deeny was elected on a platform to save the local hospital and the NI Green Party has made an historic break through gaining its first ever seat.

Brian Wilson, who has been a councillor since 1981, was elected with 9.2% of the vote clenching the fifth of six places in the North Down constituency.

Congratulations should also go to Eammonn McCann of the Socialist Environmental Alliance for his 5.0% share of the vote in very difficult political territory. A vote that would have, in some other wards gained him a seat. Check also Noel, Greenman, and Derek

Defection just down the road

Ahead of the local elections in May, a Labour councillor has decided to defend his seat under the banner of the Green Party. Ernie Goody, Borough and Town councillor for Haverhill East, has been welcomed into the Green Party, which he says better accords with his constituents' interests as well as his own beliefs.

Councillor Goody said: "My recent concerns as a councillor have focussed more and more on green issues, but nationally and locally Labour are not getting on with what's needed. I am excited to have a remit to campaign wholeheartedly on environmental problems which affect my constituents and the planet. They need greenways to get to the town centre on foot, bike or wheel chair, and that will cut traffic emissions. New homes should all be zero carbon from now on, and that would mean warmer homes and lower fuel bills as well."

Ernie Goody has been a member of the Labour Party for seven years, and has represented Haverhill East on Haverhill Town Council and St. Edmundsbury Borough Council since 2003 when he polled highest out of three Labour councillors. At this election only Labour and Tories stood in the ward and it's been a consistently tight race for years. So who knows what will happen at the ballot box.

Just to add a little spice to the pot this blog covered one of the councillors of East Haverhill not so long ago in this post about Tory Cllr Gordon Cox (who was elected in a by-election the year after) who'd been hauled across the coals for being a bluff old cove and hating being asked questions. I mean, don't these people know he's too important to be questioned for goodness sake? What do they think democracy is, a free for all?

For the people of Haverhill this is a real opportunity to break from the tired concensus politics of two parties of government that are out of touch, all too often out of reach and in love with the market. Ernie does not just represent a pleasant pre-conference boost for the Green Party he creates the possibility of the beginnings of a small block of progressive politics on the council, and that's got to be a good thing.

In the coming election all three seats in his ward will be up for grabs, so let's see if Ernie can help us get a treble this May.

House of Lords victory

The House of Commons has chosen not to go for a compromise deal and vote for a 100% elected House of Lords. Much to my surprise and pleasure.

Unlock democracy have this to say; "In case you did not hear, TWO options passed. The option for an 80% elected / 20% appointed second chamber passed by a simple majority (ayes: 305; nos: 267). The option for a fully elected second chamber passed by an absolute majority (ayes: 337; nos: 224). Given a straight choice between a hybrid house and a fully elected one, MPs backed the latter...

"Be warned though, it isn't over yet. The House of Lords will be debating its own future next week [Tuesday], and there the reform is likely to meet stiff resistance. The crucial matter of what electoral system to use remains unresolved. Will the Government hold firm in pushing through reform and, if necessary, use the Parliament Act to stop the House of Lords from blocking it? Unless we keep up the pressure over the next few crucial months, the promise of tonight's vote could remain unfulfilled for years, even decades."

It worth looking to Natalie who has blogged on the subject, and has some interesting links - including one that muses this may mean the Queen is next... oh, don't tease me so.

What kind of sectarian are you?

The left loves to think of each other as "sectarians", there never has been a genuine disagreement as far as I can tell without sectarianism being at the root of it, at least according to some quarters... but what sort, how can we tell without a diagram? Click the image and then use the chart to determine what kind of sectarian you are.

Citizens of the US may need to substitute "Member of the Democrats" for "Member of the Labour Party". Likewise with other countries.

This is a draft so any corrects particularly useful.

I really should get out more these kinds of stupidities are helping no-one...

William Morris

Been emailed this, looks worthy of passing on...

The William Morris Gallery in Walthamstow is threatened with closure, which would be a drastic loss to Morris studies - socialists and others should view the prospect with concern.

Please could you sign the online petition against closure?
Sign petition here

There's also some more general information here - Keep our museums open

Lords Reform

The debate on Lords reform is taking place today and tomorrow. Michael Meacher says "The power of the Prime Minister has grown, is still growing, and needs to be cut sharply back" and that includes ensuring that the Lords becomes a fully elected second chamber, that's democratically accountable, not one packed full of cronies and appointees, even nice ones.

MPs will be given a ballot paper from which they can choose from a number of options. 100%, 80%, 60%, 40%, 20%, 0% elected. They know which way the wind is blowing but it doesn't mean they wont hold back progress without a shove. Shame on all of them that vote for anything less than 100% elected - this isn't the age of feudalism you know.

Update: Jon Cruddas is for a 100% elected second chamber.

Swansea conference

Is that the time already? Green Party conference is fast approaching (22nd to the 25th of March in Swansea) and I thought I'd take the opportunity to mention some of the things I'll be involved with whilst there (I'll have to go early Sunday though I'm afraid in order to get back for revolucionario español, never mind).

First up is council housing. I'm one of several proposing a motion opposing Arms Length Management Organisations, or ALMO's (C7 page 30) (Proposers: Matt Sellwood, Jim Jepps, Romayne Phoenix, Anne Gray and 9 others) The synopsis reads "The Government is pushing local authorities towards 'Arms Length Management Organisations' as opposed to stock retention. This motion would commit the Green Party to opposing new ALMOs, and illustrate how to make best use of them where they already exist."

I think it's important that we prevent the slippage away from public ownership under democratic control of our public services, and with the current housing crisis it is even more important that we ensure there is decent, affordable housing for all - and that means preventing the continued erosion of the council housing stock.

There is also a friendly amendment which I hope we'll see pass through unopposed.

Second there is a change to the rules on who can be elected onto GPEx, the national executive of the Green Party (D3 page 61) (Proposers Peter Cranie, Sian Berry, Jim Jepps and Matt Sellwood). Synopsis reads "This motion brings the qualification to stand for GPEx into line with the minimum qualification to stand for the Green Party as a General Election candidate."

As things currently stand you could be a Green MP/MEP but ineligible to even *stand* for a post on GPEx, that seems wrong to me. So we're hoping to reduce the eligibility from two years of party membership to one, although I hope no one has their greedy little eyes on my poor little soul. Incidentally, there is a bonkers amendment on another motion trying to increase eligibility for a particular role to eight years! Madness...

However, the blogging highlight will of course be "Green Bloggers; utilising new media" on Thursday at 1900 (venue tba). On the timetable says its called by me but actually it organised jointly between me and our illustrious internal communications officer... keep your eyes peeled for more details closer to the time.

I'm hoping to blog the conference again, although alas I'll be missing the last day (click the Green Party tag and scroll down a bit to see last year's controversies). Perhaps I'll see some of you there?

Cambridgeshire council racism III

I promise you this is a *new* Cambridgeshire story, no matter how much it might seem like something I've said before (like this, this and this)

Tory Councillor Gail Kenney (Sawston) is up before the Standards Board tomorrow after complaints from the Soni Kuriz Young Asian Women's Group that she'd made Islamophobic / racist remarks to them after the councillor visited them in her capacity as Children's & Young People's Services Scrutiny Committee member. The girls aged between 16 and 18 claim Kenney was "racist, arrogant, prejudiced, judgmental, patronising and did not listen."

The internal investigation found that the councillor was "unintentionally" racist, breached the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and "therefore failed to treat people with respect." However, it also ruled that she had not damaged the reputation of her office, which is an interesting ruling don't you think?

She breached the Race Relations Act but that's OK? Hmmm.

Anyway, what did she actually do, apart from clearly upsetting and infuriating a group of spirited young women? She told one girl she only wore the hijab "because it suited her", made offensive remarks about Islamic terrorists and assumed that one of the girls would be "married off to some illiterate man from back home" against her will. On an official visit to a young woman's Muslim group, ffs. They should be glad she didn't come in with fists flying I suppose.

Kenney has apologised for the remarks but then goes on to state "I believe this issue has been blown out of all proportion... I take my role as a county councillor extremely seriously and will listen with interest to the deliberations of the standards board."

Well, at least she's listening to someone. Shame it isn't her constituents.

Which reminds of another story in today's papers. Cllr Patricia O'Brien has described how she has been recieving hate mail, which is obviously a bad thing. Why wont her constituents let her close schools in Newmarket, Mildenhall and Haverhill in peace. It's just so unfair isn't it?

She admits that she is surprised at the strength of local reaction to her plans for schools in the area but "I have got a lot of faith that we're doing the right thing." Apparently she represents a "silent majority" but, and I've always wondered this about silent majorities - how do you know what they think if they are silent?

Aren't any of these people listening to the people at all? Why are they making such a virtue out of being out of touch with those who live in their areas? That's democracy I guess... cough, cough.

Free hugs

Of course yesterday was not all demonstrations, there was more fun to be had. Not only did I have a very pleasant meet up with fellow bloggers Mich and John but I also had one of the most beautiful experiences I've had this year (not the lunar eclipse).

As the demo was dispersing I saw one of my next door neighbours holding up a home made sign simply saying "Free Hugs". As he saw me he made a little flick of the head (come hither) with a lovely shy smile.

I will say now, with no hesitation, that this was the best hug I had ever had in my entire life. Absolutely perfect pre-hug, during and post-hug technique.

It turns out he is part of an international movement dedicated to making the world just that little bit less unhugged.