Tory MUGs

As we speak some Tories are attending the Convention for Modern Liberties and others are coming up with new wheezes about "mobile jails" where prisoners are signed in via video link by Dalek Four. Cripes, let's hope that sorts out all our civil liberties worries.

"The specially-designed "mobile urban gaols" - or "MUGs" - would be deployed in areas afflicted by knife crime and anti-social behavior... They would be deployed also at sporting events and shopping centres with high levels of shoplifting."

I hear-by denounce this as a stupid idea, a horrific idea, a headline grabbing initiative that will never come to pass.

I also happen to think it would actually use up more police time rather than less (the stated aim) and put cops in more danger than they currently are, guarding these half staffed Stalag-portacabins that have conveniently been placed near the roughest and toughest gangs in the land.

Post Office Pensions

The government has decided that the best line of attack to privatise the post office (the current proposal is a direct sell off of a mighty 30% of the mail) is to point to the rather startling £ 5.9 billion pensions deficit and say that the only way to fill that hole is to have private companies creaming profits out of the organisation.

Of course, it has been suggested that nationalisation of the pensions scheme might be a more logical approach but then what's logic ever had to do with the privatisation mania? As the CWU says the pensions are just an excuse. It's all about the ongoing desire to privatise the post - an employer which is one of the last bastions of a stable and militant trades unionism.

I initially thought that perhaps this deficit had been created by the financial crisis but in fact, if it has contributed to the problem it's certainly not the cause. In fact the employer had been exempt from making employers' contributions to the fund for a whopping thirteen years, starting under the John Major government.

New Labour not only continued the policy, they introduced taxation on pension funds, after all times were good and always would be - they'd abolished boom and bust remember?

The crisis in the post office pensions has been an ongoing issue with new posties being taken on under a different scheme and old timers who've had their pensions downgraded. But maybe that's academic if the government are prepared to allow the pension fund to go to the wall as a lever to get their way in pulling down public services free from private enterprise.

How astonishing that the employer had been allowed to stop making their contributions to the pension funds and create this massive deficit. How disgusting that Peter Mandelson will use this very worrying fact to force through, or try to, something that every postie and the vast majority of the country are opposed to.

What does Ashcroft's bear do in the woods?

Following on from the previous post about political donations it appears that all is not well in the Tory house of card sharps. One of the largest donations to any UK political party last year came from top Tory Lord Ashcroft's company Bearwood Corporate Services which, if it was an Internet site, could be described as an anonymising proxy.

Essentially BCS hosts fund raising dinners for the Tory Party, collects in the money and then hands over large sums of money as a donation from it rather than the benefactors who remain unseen. This means that all those attending the dinners, many of whom have handed over large sums of money - clearly over the £5,000 threshold for declaration - do not have to declare themselves as donors to the Party.

According to the FT today Ashcroft is now under investigation for this front organisation (here) because even if it's within the law it's certainly not in the spirit of the rules.

The UK has rather strict rules about who can donate significant sums of money to its political parties. You have to be on the electoral role for a start. So whilst Mandelson comes in for a lot of flak for rubbing shoulders with Russian oligarchs we simply have not got a clue who is donating to the Conservatives, nor which country's natural resources they are exploiting.

Are they taking money from arms dealers? Pornographers? Or worse... property developers? What screening process takes place for these anonymous donors, if any? Half a million pounds came from BCS last year of which, according to The Telegraph, the entirety came from a single October fundraiser in Glasgow.

The money then passed through another front organisation, Focus on Scotland, which as "an "unincorporated association", [is] a legal entity that does not have to publish accounts or other financial details." Since 2004 this one association has passed on one and a half million pounds to the Tories from anonymous donors.

This may well be a perfectly legal exploitation of a loophole in the regulations, but none the less its extremely shabby practice allowing those who are meant to be excluded from donating to donate and cutting against any profession that the Tories want to see more transparency and honesty in politics.

ps I must read this.

Another reason why there wont be a general election this year

The Electoral Commission report on party funding in 2008 is out today and I suspect it wont make happy reading for Labour supporters. Let's look at the figures;

Donations in the last quarter of 2008

• Conservatives £ 5,138,850
• Labour party £ 2,621,952
• Liberal Democrats £ 960,898

Loans (ie debts outstanding)

• Conservatives £ 6,897,552
• Labour Party £ 11,553,280
• Liberal Democrats £ 523,171

In other words Labour has half the financial support and twice the debts of the main opposition party.

To put these numbers in the context of that valiant little fighter, the Green Party, we have no "loans" and received £ 43,000 in donations (plus ten thousand more if you include the Scottish Green Party, to compare like with like). That's a twentieth of the funds of the Lib Dems.

Now let's look at the ten largest political donors for 2008 (by party);

Labour

• Unite - AMICUS section £2,591,741
• Lord David Sainsbury £2,511,808
• UNISON £1,780,122
• GMB £1,368,873
• Unite - TGWU section £1,364,175
• Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers £1,111,049
• Joanne Rowling £1,000,000

Tories

• Bearwood Corporate Services £1,600,893
• National Conservative Draws Society £836,801
• David Whelan £750,000

Yes, that's right folks, not only are Labour are getting less money overall but a far smaller proportion of it is coming from small donations. What colour is the people's flag again? If it wasn't for Harry Potter, Sainsbury's and the unions they'd be sunk.

Other news of interest: what on Earth are the English Democrats doing with a £ 101,447 debt hanging over them? Gambling on electoral successes that never came? A new pool for their leader? This only compares to the £ 100,000 debt for the Progressive Party - and I've no idea who they are! Money well spent I hope.

ps I have removed a silly inaccuracy that was helpfully pointed out in the comments.

Marital breakdown and climate change

According to Australian Senator Steve Fielding the breakdown of traditional marriage is bad for the environment. Divorce is a "resource-inefficient lifestyle" and therefore unhappy couples should stick together for the sake of the planet. I suppose that's a bit grander than "for the sake of the children".

Steve is the lone Senator of Family First, and whilst he shares many of their ultra conservative views to his credit he did face calls for his resignation for backing a woman's right to choose. However, that doesn't change the fact that he's cynically using the issue of climate change to push a rather backward view of society.

Don't get me wrong - he's right. More and more of us are living in smaller and smaller units and that is inefficient on a whole number of levels. It's part of the housing crisis, it's more expensive on a personal level and, yes, it's bad for the environment.

The problem for our back to basics Senator is that the nuclear family is also "resource-inefficient". If we want to organise our living arrangements according to the needs of reducing our carbon footprint then we should be living far more communally than boxed off family units. The basic unit of living should be the community not the household - that's if we're serious about making fundamental social changes to address climate change.

I don't know if the good Senator is an advocate of anarcho-communism or not but as a great man once said "those who half make a revolution dig their own graves". Attacking divorce isn't even a half measure when it comes to CO2. Come on Mr Fielding call for shared communal living, I dares ya!

Don't scare the children

Cerrie Burnell has hit the news today (eg BBC) because some parents have complained about her appearance on the BBC's childrens programming. Is she a filthy racist? A vulgarian unable to help herself effing and blinding every other word? If so - it's strictly on her own time. No, she has committed the sin of having less than two arms, sparking some complaints that she might scare children, a host of bilious comments on the BBC message boards and a mini-stir in the right wing press.

I've watched a bit of her performance and she seems perfectly capable of doing her job, which has been corroborated by parents who have to watch kids TV. Although when, in the clip, she screamed and started waving her stump at the camera shouting "No, no, don't let the monsters get you too! Run and hide! Just don't go under your bed - THAT'S WHERE THEY STORE ALL THE STOLEN ARMS!" I thought that was slightly misjudged, but probably acceptable in context.

Of course, those who complained have used the typical cowards excuse and blamed their children, saying they had to explain disability to them "before they were ready". How old do you have to be before your ready to have Dad shrug and go "yeah, she's missing an arm" and go back to his paper? Anyway kids are good at learning new things. It's part of what being a kid is all about - it's adults who find long ingrained prejudice harder to challenge, as this episode demonstrates.

Whilst the right seems to think her employment is some sort of demonstration of political correctness according to wikipedia she seems amply qualified. She is a mother who has appeared in Holby City, Grange Hill and East Enders as well as writing a play. Oh yeah, and her favourite games is twister. However, her 'achievement' of only having one arm appears to be most significant in most people's minds and has obscured the fact that she's clearly quite good at her job.

I'm not sure it is really some sort of ideological dogma to think that someone who was born with one arm is still a person capable of doing a good job is it? It's not like the BBC have done something radical like having a fat presenter or a French one. But then they'd never do that so we're safe.

As Carrie says this hoo ha is a demonstration of still existing bigotry and there are still barriers to break down. "It just goes to show how important it is to have positive disabled role models on CBeebies and television in general." Wishing disabled people away, hidden out of sight, is part of the problem that means that some of us are not able to understand the pretty basic proposition that having one less arm has no effect on your worth as a human being what so ever. The less "normal" we make disability the stupider society gets.

I worked for eight years with severely disabled people who had learning disabilities and mental health problems. When there was fear against this group of people it was almost always based on ignorance rather than justified concern.

When I worked on secure units we'd often have trainee nurses come to do placements and it was a regular occurrence for these students to be scared out of their wits when they first arrived confronted by sights they'd never been witness to before, one woman even hid in a back office for eight hours on her first day. However, by the time they finished their placement they were just as relaxed and understanding as everyone else. They'd learned about these "strange people" by experiencing them at first hand and their world was a more safe and secure one for it.
Gaining a rounded view of the world as early as possible is a good thing. Your kids will have more fear in their lives if you teach them idiocies like mildly disabled people should be shunned by society.

A media that screened out any "abnormalities" like black people, the disabled and those with funny religious beliefs is one that is doing a great disservice to the public. Not just because it would teach people in those groups that they are outsiders and not "normal" but also because it trains white, middle class, C of E people that they are not the pinnacle of society just through accident of birth. Like Cerrie, they have to earn their place and I guess it's frightening when you feel your privilege being threatened.

See also Weggis and the Daily Mash for humorous takes on the matter. Plus Adrian Windisch and the Liberal Conspiracy piece are well worth a read.

Where do you draw the line?

Well, for the Green Party it appears to be when you support nuclear power. The Independent says;

Chris Goodall, prospective parliamentary candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon, upset many party members with his assertion in yesterday’s Independent that atomic energy has a role to play in the fight against climate change. Mr Goodall was one of four prominent environmentalists disclosed as having had a change of heart about the nuclear issue, having moved from an anti-nuclear stance to believing that atomic power is a necessary part of the energy mix in the struggle to cut carbon emissions and halt global warming.

The others are Lord Smith of Finsbury, the former Labour cabinet minister who now chairs the Environment Agency; Stephen Tindale, a former executive director of Greenpeace, and Mark Lynas, the author of two studies of climate change. But while the others are in essence free agents, Mr Good-all’s case is distinctive in that his views are now formally at odds with one of his own party’s key policy positions.

Resolute opposition to nuclear power has been a cornerstone of Green party policy for years, as is made clear in the party’s principal policy document, Manifesto for a Sustainable Society, which states unambiguously that a Green government, on taking office, would set a deadline for phasing out all nuclear power.

Mr Goodall’s remarks had left many party members “seriously concerned”, the Green Party leader, Caroline Lucas, MEP, said last night. “It is of great concern to me that a candidate should be promoting a policy which is at odds with the party manifesto, and I shall be taking that forward,” she said. “In any party, you have a range of different views, but once selected as a parliamentary candidate, you have a particular responsibility.”

The matter would be dealt with by the party’s regional council, after speaking to Mr Goodall directly, she said. Asked if this would include disciplinary action and possibly even de-selection as a candidate, Ms Lucas would only say: “We will be taking appropriate measures.”

That's rather interesting.

My understanding is that the Green Party is a decentralised organisation and that elected members often differ from the party policy in one way or another. One example would be on Sir Ian Blair where one Green Assembly Member voted against sacking him whilst the other Assembly Member voted for and the national party was issuing press releases to the effect that he should go. I was never for that first member to be expelled despite being very frustrated by the whole thing.

Neither members rights nor nuclear power are mentioned in the primary document of the party and the constitution isn't particularly clear on this either so it's not obvious to me where the line should be drawn at all. The policy is clear that the party opposes nuclear power and one section states;

"Elected members and other representatives have a responsibility to promote the policies of the national and local green parties, as expressed in the MfSS and national, regional and local manifestos. Where they do not agree with Party policy and publicly state their own position, they should at the same time state and explain the position of the Green Party."

As a PPC Chris is clearly a representative of the party and has clearly stepped over that line. He talks at length on the issue here and here and does not discuss the fact that he is at odds with party policy. But then the implications of this appear to be that any disagreement with the large number of policy documents is forbidden, except where you have the opportunity to explain your position in the context of the full party policy. That seems a bit much to me, and it's certainly a rule that many Greens break.

I don't agree with Chris on nuclear power - it's expensive, dangerous and will take too long to come on line anyway - but there is a genuine debate taking place in the environmental movement on this and I'd be concerned that he could not express himself freely on the issue. Mind you an open letter in The Independent is quite a high profile form of expression and I'm sure he expected some fall out from it.

Flawlessness is not beauty

I have a pet hate. Well no, let's face it, I have a whole stock of pet hates - but the advertising industry is a particularly keen one. Their obsession with the idea that "flawlessness" is the only acceptable form of beauty is utterly foul in my view. Take this picture (from here) which shows some famous person or other (no idea who) before and after photoshopping.

On the left we have the look and style of mainstream monocultural advertising and on the right we have the model in the studio after lighting, make up, whatever but before the photoshopper has had his wicked way with the image.

Now, I realise that aesthetics are partly a matter of individual taste, but isn't it a bit Stepford Wives-ish to think that people with their idiosyncrasies removed are more 'perfect', are better, that those with them? That, in fact, the more plastic and less human someone appears the closer to the ideal they become?

Take her eyes for example. Pre-shopping she has the kind of eyes that are rather useful for looking at things. Post-shopping she has had two bright buttons sown in their place like some sightless teddy who's sole purpose in life is to be utterly passive, to lie back and dream of electric sheep. Frankly I don't think it's an improvement. Of course it's of a piece with the fact that her rather lovely freckles have been laminated over, rendering her skin the kind of wipe clean surface that would be the pride of any Mr Muscle advert - immaculate and dead.

Certainly for those who internalise these images as the icons of what we should aspire to this must be a real problem. A germ free, clinical production line look is the very opposite of what we are. Just as Pinocchio aspired to be a real boy we have millions of teens yearning to be made of plastic, and it creeps into every corner of society, no mind is wholly immune from its duplicitous effects.

Life is messy and there is beauty within that - not that I'm claiming that my bedroom is the height of aesthetic elegance because of its tip like qualities mind you. It's not simply that imperfections set the heart racing in a way that automatons cannot, it's that the very flawlessness they present is itself a tainted and insidious product of a world view that sees human beings as commodities, production line moulded and shrink wrapped ready for sale.

The advertising lies that the manufactured, defectless image is an improvement on mortal flesh are bastards of their adulterate hearts. Their belief that, as with wealth, our attributes are quantifiable. Just as when you slap a price sticker on any Turner, Picasso or Hirst we cannot help, despite ourselves, to believe their value has been measured and they become real in their price.

It seems to me that there are class elements to the norms of beauty that reflect this commodification. The approved benchmarks of accent, behaviour, dress and race tend towards the upper end of the social ladder, lean towards privilege even when this cuts against our everyday experience. It even extends down to the fact that wealth can buy you looks. In a way money can be the real world version of photoshop, on occasion tragically mimicking the excellent photoshop disasters.

These images are powerful through their repetition, their ubiquity and their disposability. Whilst Andrew Marvell talked of a "vegetable love" that takes its time to grow and mature these images are the industrial effluent that poisons the soil in which that love might grow.

Weekending: Cutting mustard

It's that time again when I post a few bits and bobs that caught my eye this week. Still experimenting with the lay out as you can probably tell.

The twenty-ninth Carnival of Socialism is over at the Mustard Seed.

28th March to coincide with the arrival of the G20 there is a demonstration for "jobs, justice and climate" - see Put People First for details - I think this is going to be big and it's great to see a demo with wider aims for a change.

The Cambridge Action Network has a new, wiki based, website.

Polly Toynbee podcasts on migrant labour.

Love flow charts? The make some!

How to tell if your cat is plotting to kill you.

Green News: change at the top in the New Zealand Green Party.

Letter of the week: Is from Thursday's Telegraph. SIR – While not condoning the ban on taking photographs of policemen, had it been in force last year would it not have spared us the numerous pictures of the rather smug Sir Ian Blair?
Colin Stone Cellardyke, Fife

If you have anything you'd like me to include next week - just let me know. Let's end with some political music on airport expansion courtesy of the new rapping blog raplog;

BNP make election gain in Kent

It appears that the BNP won a council by-election last night in Swanley.

The vote breakdown: BNP 408, Lab 332, Con 247.
Previous result May 2007: Two seats Lab 462, 420, Con 208, 197, Ukip 165

Worrying news, although on the plus side the BNP did very poorly in a Lewisham council by-election on the same night where they had deliberately targeted anti-knife crime campaigner Duwayne Brookes.

The BNP candidate, Tess Culnane, has done the rounds of the far right leaving the BNP because they were soft on immigration and becoming the Lewisham Assembly candidate for the National Front (as well as the NF's Haltemprice & Howden by-election candidate). Added to this she's also spoken on platforms of the nutty, even more fringe, British People's Party too.

She was welcomed back into the BNP in January of this year despite her hard line views on race conflicting with the respectabilist image the BNP has been trying hard to cultivate over the years. It's good to see that she was able to pull together very little support last night.

Irish Greens to leave government?

Oh dear God let it happen! Next month the Irish Green Party conference will discuss whether to call an all members meeting on staying in the right wing coalition government. This decision is not one that only effects Ireland but the reputation of Greens all over the world is at stake.

Some favour trying to form a "government of national unity" with lefter forces, like Sein Fein, whilst it looks like others (although I fear a minority) just want shot of the lot of them in order to get back to fighting for what they believe in.

The whole process of going into the coalition in the first place was pretty sickening as the party leader at the time of the election, Trevor Sargent, had said he would not lead the Greens into a coalition. Voters will have been under the impression that this meant the Greens weren't going to be coalition partners with the right.

Nope, Sargent resigned the party leadership in order to allow the party to take a child's seat at the table. I suspect many of those who'd voted for the Party would have felt utterly betrayed by the move, or at least bewildered. That kind of approach is frankly unimpressive.

Of course, with the Euro elections coming up we'll be able to see exactly how much these decisions have cost the Greens in support in Eire. From my perspective however, the performance of the party in government has been weak to say the least. Partly because they are constrained by their senior partners they have not exactly covered themselves in glory (eg roads, bus fiasco, GM crops) this despite holding the Minister for the Environment post.

A number of high profile resignations from the party were made all the worse by the dismissive attitude of the Party itself and it appears that activists have dropped out of the party orbit - either into inactivity or simply more direct forms of democracy.

I suspect a large number of Greens around the world will be watching to see what happens in Ireland both at the conference and in the Euro-elections. Personally I can't see the point of having a principled party if it's principles are for sale. Whilst I don't hold with any form of purism it really does seem that the Irish Greens have been a tragic example of how successes can be built on sand.

Iceland: Kill the whales!

You may have heard that Iceland has a new government, made up of the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left Green Movement. The last one collapsed after sixteen weeks of protest due to the economic crisis and the fact they had a banking sector that went well beyond their means.

The new Prime Minister is possibly the first ex-air hostess to achieve such high office. More importantly she was selected to become PM because she's generally seen to be on the left of the SDA and what's needed now is a bit of old fashioned socialism to set capitalism back on its feet. Or something.

The Left Green's chairman and leading politician is Steingrímur Jóhann Sigfússon (pictured) who's most notable achievement to date appears to be the fact that when the US abandoned their air bases in 2006 he argued that Iceland should not develop its own armed forces. He's also spoken out against Gordon Brown and the use of UK anti-terror legislation to seize financial assets.

Steingrímur holds the positions of both Finance Minister and Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture, both extremely important positions and symbolic of the central role that the left is playing in the new government.

It's disappointing then to see that almost his very first act as top fishman is to extend whaling. There has been extreme international concern at the move, which is essentially a refusal to rescind an order made in the dying days of the old government, despite the fact that Parliament itself has grave reservations about whaling and the PM's earlier promise to review the decision.

"The ambassadors from the United States, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, France and Finland met with Sigfússon last week to discuss the issue. On Tuesday, those seven countries issued a letter asking him to rethink the sixfold increase to its whaling quota."

So let's be clear - New Labour is pressuring the Greens to ban whaling - and they are refusing. That's effing marvellous that is. That's a present from the disappointment shop with a bloody great ribbon on top!

The move will mean that whalers will be able to catch "100 minke whales and 150 fin whales during 2009", although Steingrímur has told whalers not to take these quotas for granted in future years. I'm sure the whalers are happy enough though as they were expecting the new government to institute an outright ban. Iceland and Norway are the only two countries in the world that allow commercial whaling (Japan hunts for "scientific purposes").

Not cool Steingrímur. This is not cool at all. You had it in your hands and you just let the opportunity slip through your fingers. Let's hope this kind of decision does not characterise your time in office.

Arrested for writing in snow!

Another civil liberties horror story, this time from The Daily Record;

A GRANDAD was arrested by police - for drawing a protest message in the snow. Geoff Lamb, 65, yesterday told how he was handcuffed, spent a night in the cells and had his car impounded.

It happened after police found him drawing a four-foot high slogan on a hill. The 100-foot-long message was on the flight path into Aberdeen airport so that it could be read by passengers.

The message read: "You fly, they die."

It was written by Geoff using a garden pressure hose and was meant to be a protest against climate change. But police arrested Geoff and a woman friend, aged 26. Geoff accused officers of heavy-handed treatment.

He said: "As far as I knew, there was no law against writing messages in the snow. What next? Are they going to start arresting people for building snowmen?"

The retired petrol engineer told how officers swooped as he wrote the message last week.

He said: "We wanted to let people flying to Aberdeen know that they are contributing to global warming - but in a funny way. But just as I was finishing the message, the police turned up. Even though we were well away from the airport, they said we couldn't write messages in the snow."

Geoff, of Bield side, Aberdeen, said: "We were put in handcuffs, arrested and taken to the police station. We were kept overnight and had our mobiles taken away. I had my car impounded and it cost me £150 to get it out again. We were charged with breach of the peace but I'm not sure why.

"I've now received a letter from the procurator fiscal saying the charges have been dropped. I should think so as well. This was ridiculous."

A spokeswoman for protest group Plane Speaking said: "I would have thought the police had better things to do with their time than arrest people for playing in the snow. This was a complete waste of police resources and a total over-reaction to what was just aprank."

Police insisted they were right to take action.

Some of our bombs are missing

Gaza has been covered with unexploded ordinance for some time now and understandably Palestinians have taken steps to collect it up so it's not an ongoing danger to the local population.

On Sunday the Hamas guarded warehouse, where some of these bombs were being stored, was unexpectedly short a few bombs. They were missing. All kinds of people would like to know where they might be, and who might have them. Good and reasonable questions of course.

The fact that the place is chaos is not surprising, the infrastructure has been hammered flat. What has my head spinning is the reaction to the news that three one-ton bombs and eight quarter-ton bombs have gone walk about.

Hamas stole the explosives, apparently.

Now, I'm not a lawyer but this seems a curious perspective. You drop a carpet of bombs onto a country and when some of those bombs don't go off and are snaffled away is it really stealing? I mean they're effectively presents aren't they? They aren't your responsibility any more. It's not like kicking a ball over your neighbours fence and asking for it back. Is it?

What is the world coming to when you can't hurl high explosives into densely populated areas without someone walking off with your A grade flash bangs? Thieving bastards. That's IDF property that is.

At the end of the day Israeli forces are still dropping their bombs all over the place. To my mind if you're careless enough to throw your weapons around willy nilly you've lost any claim of ownership over them. Maybe that's just me though...

Nukes in the news

We've had a couple of wonderful nuclear stories recently, designed to make us feel safe and cosy in our unirradiated beds.

The first one was the hilarious news that the new operators at nuclear waste dump for Sellafield had discovered that the paper work on what had been buried was sketchy at best and had felt the need to take out an advert which said;

"LLWR are looking for nuclear industry employees who have worked at Sellafield and have been involved in the consignment of waste to the Low Level Waste Repository near Drigg... We are very keen to speak to people who were directly involved in consigning nuclear waste during the 1960s to the mid-1980s in order to build up a comprehensive picture of the waste inventory in the trenches."

It seems that the new company have little idea of what lies lurking beneath the surface of the Low Level Waste Repository which has largely been capped and sealed off for some time. We'll have to see whether ex-workers can remember what they put and where. I'm sure it isn't just the company that would be interested in knowing what's been dumped at the site.

The managing director Dick Razz (such a cool name) has described taking on his new role as an "exciting time" although whether this is a bit too exciting he doesn't say. Anyway he is quick to point out that everything is hunky dory down at the atom factory so we can all cool our heels and chillax. Anyway - these problems are all from the old days, we never lose information these days.

Secondly we have the news that two of our nuclear submarines have rammed each other out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean somewhere. It's reported that the British and French subs CRASHED into each other causing severe damage.

HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant, both equipped with state of the art detection equipment, carry a nuclear reactor and nuclear weapons - although both governments were eager to reassure everyone that we're all completely safe and, honestly, they would they us if we weren't - wouldn't they?

CND, those old commies, said;

“This is the most severe incident involving a nuclear submarine since the sinking of the Kursk in 2000 and the first time since the Cold War that two nuclear-armed subs are known to have collided. These dangers are inherent whilst the British government maintains its 1960s’ policy of having at least one nuclear-weapons submarine sailing round the Atlantic 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. HMS Vanguard is likely to be confined to port for months with a multimillion pound repair bill. Gordon Brown should seize this opportunity to end continuous patrols, building on Barack Obama’s recent moves to downgrade the alert status of US nukes.”

I'm so glad that millions upon millions of pounds go into these white elephants. It makes you proud don't it? I mean we could be wasting that money on hospitals or modernising our infrastructure. Still it keeps everyone on their toes I suppose.

What to do with the bankers: guillotine or crucify?

It's been a curious week with politicians in both the US and UK queuing up to kick top bankers. In the US in particular we've seen Republican Senators frothing at the mouth over fat cat bonuses and their private planes. Clearly they think they are in with a chance of an Oscar or two, sometimes you can even believe they're angry.

Bankers have a fiduciary responsibility to their companies, which many of them have clearly failed. They need to be held to account and currently we have some show trials which are supposed to fulfill that function. They ignored risk warnings not just from a senior insider who got quietly garroted but from millions of ordinary p[eople who could see the dangers but they ignored the signs because it was not in their short term interests to do so.

Whilst the big cheeses have a legal responsibility to the profitability of their companies they have never had, and no politician has ever suggested that they should have had, such a responsibility to society as a whole. If the banks had remained sustainable by asset stripping and destroying lives there would be no tut tutting at the mega-bonuses, it's only because they broke the banks as well as people's lives that politicians are subjecting us to this charade at all.

Let's not forget that the insincere histrionics on display are largely for the benefit of the cameras to demonstrate to ordinary people that the politicos feel their pain. But we should consider that the same Republican senators who today rail against the monster-bonuses or any sign of excess, are the same senators who fiercely objected during the October / November bailout negotiations to the inclusion of any conditionality or accountability of the rich and powerful.

It does not just smack of hypocrisy it's a real hay maker. In the smoke filled rooms they advocate for the rich and deregulation, in front of the cameras they posture and rage against their pals when they do as they please. Those bankers have a right to look hurt because this is probably the first time anyone's suggested that they should be democratically accountable. This is a new concept to those on both sides of the televised spleen venting.

The attempt to scapegoat specific bankers helps prevent an assessment of the role of the banks in our economy in good times and bad. The fetishisation of high risk strategies when they thought the markets were invulnerable was not just about bankers alone - it was the economic credo of the day and even Mr Prudence aka Brown was foursquare behind the madness.

So we're in a period that is a perfect opportunity to restructure our economic institutions, and it may be my imagination but the majority of the political class on both sides of the Atlantic seem petrified of the possibility. Whilst they promote solutions that focus on encouraging spending rather than addressing debt and job security they are, in my view, not just missing a trick they're positively dangerous. Even more dangerous when they use the crisis as an excuse to downplay climate change measures as the SNP did recently.

The government is part of the economy - not some outside actor - and it is well placed to be an advocate of sustainable economics that prioritises the welfare of the population over the fetishisation of economic institutions. Some political figures get this but for the majority the financial collapse is like a natural disaster that they can't explain. As someone once said - all that is solid melts into air, all that is sacred is profaned.

Over expansion based on borrowed money is at the heart of the crisis which means that debt and spending based solutions are born of dogmas that have had their day. Restructuring is likely to happen anyway, so we need to ensure that we make the argument clearly enough for the kind of restructuring that sees social accountability, via regulation and nationalisation, that can hold financial institutions to account for their behaviour and head off a repeat performance of the current crash.

Weekending: shout outs

First of all a couple of events you might like to pop into your busy diary;

Sunday, March 1

Change: Yes we can't!
Comedy night with Peyvand Khorsandi and Hils Barker (right)
Fundraiser for Hands Off The People Of Iran (HOPI)

Venue: The Library Pub, Upper Street, London
Starts: 8:00pm. Cost: £8

Facebook event is here in case you want to invite your friends.
You can also download the flyer here.
Plus you can watch Peyvand's sister on the Late Show here. Very, very funny.

Saturday, 7th March

Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Conference
Venue: Franklin-Wilkins Building, King's College London, Stamford Street, London

Speakers include:Chris Baugh, Tony Kearns, Jean Lambert, Ian Lavery, Mark Lynas, John McClean, John McDonnell, Caroline Molloy, Ann Pettifor, Dave Prentis, Phil Thornhill and Matt Wrack.

Time: 11 am to 5 pm

Contact: climatetradeunion@googlemail.com
Facebook event is here.

To register simply send your name, address, phone number, email, union branch and £10 (£5 unwaged) to CCC, PO Box 417, Prestwich, Manchester M45 OAP. Cheques payable to Campaign against Climate Change.

This week's miscellaneous reading:

• The English version of an article for a French peace organisation about the Europe Against US Missile Defence conference.
• London Bishop attacked by police - what?
• The Daily Mail thinks Greens are responsible for the Australian forest fires.
• Torab Saleth on the Iranian Revolution in the Weekly Worker.
• Peter Tatchell's take on the Iranian regime in Red Pepper.
• I note a new Cambridge lefty blog The Third Estate, looks interesting.
• I've also noticed Marcus Brigstocke's blog. He's a good bloke isn't he.
• Spotted Cath Elliott's blog, well worth a look.
  
• I have two contenders for letter of the week, both from Saturday's Guardian;
• First (droll): Is this enormous oversized horse that is to be built in Kent an elaborate plot by the Greeks to invade us? Max Kenworthy London
• Second (true): So Gordon Brown could only lose two bankers in two days. At this rate we'll never be rid of them. Roger Wells Stourbridge, West Midlands

If you have a contribution for next weekend's edition feel free to let me know.

Just to finish you off, here is Pete Postlewaite talking about his role in the new film "The Age of Stupid" can't wait!

V Day Post: you're alright really

Every year I write a Valentine's Day post and 2009 will be no different! Taking my lead from a post by Pink Preppy Party Girl I've set myself the task of saying nice things about five people who don't always feel the smooth touch of my love. This may take me some time as I'm always so nice to people anyway, cough.

There are only two rules. One: I have to mean what I say. Two: it can't be an excuse to be snide.

1. Traffic Wardens: I'm always worried when there is a legitimising of hate, but in the case of traffic wardens it is particularly unjust because they do a socially useful job. Yes, it's inconvenient to obey the rules sometimes, suck it up, with the wardens the roads would be impassable. More so.
   
2. Christopher Hitchens: despite my disagreements with what he says at least he knows how to construct an argument. He's a very clever man don't you know.
   
3. GlaxoSmothKline: on the day that Andrew Witty announced that he's going to start rolling out cheap drugs to the developing world and releasing research information that has previously been tightly guarded commercial secrets I think it would be churlish not to give at least some recognition of this positive move.
   
4. The Dogmatic: You wont hear me say this often but dogmatic people, on my side of the fence and the other side, have a real contribution to make. They will tend to be uncompromising, hard working and vocal. All skills that are much needed for a political debate. Sometimes arguments need to have someone putting them crudely for clarity's sake.
5. I can't think of a fifth... rubbish! You'll have to fill this one in for yourselves.
   

Previously in the series: Valentine to the Left 2008, For a politics with love 2007 There is a V Day series over at the Donkey Zone which is gradually revealing itself over the day.

Shall we start building an Ark?

The Institution of Mechanical Engineers has called for the government to shift its climate focus towards adapting for the inevitable problems that are going to come. They assume that further attempts to reduce CO2 emissions, whilst still being necessary, will be too little too late. They are probably right.

The report essentially argues we need to be "realistic" that our governments are only going to take completely ineffectual action against climate change and therefore we need to press them to understand what implications this has for infrastructure, if we want to remain viable.

The Institute states that "Climate modelling in the report shows the UK suffering from increased flooding, volatile storms, droughts and intense heat and areas including London and the Norfolk Broads could eventually, literally, be wiped off the map." It makes sense then that all buildings, roads, sewers, pipelines, etc will either have to be made robust enough to withstand those new conditions or we have to expect a massive headache down the line.

The report has three core recommendations for us;

• Urge Government to be ‘realistic’ in the fight against climate change and start ‘adapting’ as well as mitigating.
• Heavily invest in planning and resources for our future settlements, critical national assets (power stations and ports) and transport routes.
• Help others: The UK should be leading the industrialised world to help vulnerable nations cope with impending climate change events

It's this last point that has really impressed me. Whilst it's understandable much of the news today has focused on what this might mean for the UK, in fact a substantial portion of this report examines what's going to happen in the developing world and what our responsibilities in the West are, as the main contributors of carbon emissions, to assist them deal with the deadly effects of climate chaos.

I'm inclined to agree with the engineers frankly. A few years ago I'd have been adamant that anything that even hinted that we could just buy some strong shutters meant we didn't have to reduce emissions was a dangerous game but now, well, we cannot trust to chance that we're going to solve the climate change problem before its effects start making themselves felt in a serious way. Sorry, but we're not.

Parts of the developing world have already seen the consequences of new weather systems, to tragic effects. These nations are ill equipped to deal with natural disasters, even man made ones. Whilst we in the UK have seen only hints so far just because we're a developed nation does not mean we're immune from shift in climate patterns, as those in Australia can sadly testify.

If this serves as a wake up call to bolster the need of increased production of renewable energy whilst decreasing the overall level of consumption then that's excellent, but the central message of the report - let's get ready for the storm - is one we need to heed in good time.

You can read the report adapting to the inevitable here (pdf).

Book burner cries about freedom of speech

Yes, MP Geert Wilders, the maker of the film Fitna about how hateful he thinks Islam is, is stamping his feet about the government's decision to turn him away from the country on the grounds of public order.

Wilders, who is facing trial in Holland for inciting hatred, may well complain about his treatment as he was invited by a UKIP peer, but if we examine his political platform we find - oh! - he's for turning foreigners away at Dutch borders including all Muslims, banning Islamic schools, Islamic head wear, and that the Koran should be banned and its use outlawed in Mosques and at home.

In essence he is;

• for making Islam itself illegal. So much for freedom of ideas.
• for banning those he despises from entering Holland. So much for freedom of movement.

Gasp in wonder - a fascist is a hypocrite! Whining about his own ability to spout his ideas where he likes whilst trying to prevent literally millions of law abiding citizens from practicing their faith or entering his country.

Just thought I'd mention it because when some people hear him say things like "I am in a detention centre at Heathrow... I will not be allowed to enter the country. They will send me back within a few hours... It is a very sad day, not only for me, but for freedom of speech," they might think he's stating some sort of principle. Far from it. He's simply whinging that he should have the right to deny others their rights.

I've watched the film, what a pile of ignorant, racist filth. I say he can push off and sit on the naughty step until he learns some manners. Don't for one moment think he would extend the rights he demands to anyone other than himself, he has based his political career on trying to strip those rights away.

Climate denial - not yet extinct

It's true, the dinosaurs are not yet extinct and it appears that Sammy Wilson is their elected representative in the northern bit of Ireland. Mr Wilson is the environment minister who has refused to broadcast a series of ads which he describes as “insidious New Labour propaganda” because they suggest ways people can cut their electricity bills - which also helps the fight against climate change.

He also appears to believe he can ban anyone else from discussing the issues when he said "that future ecological messages could only be promoted in Northern Ireland with his permission". That sounds like a challenge and I notice that students at his old university via the Queens Student Radio Station are playing the offending ads on the hour every hour. Good stuff.

He has been accused by the Ulster Unionists of "effectively [making] a Unilateral Declaration of Independence against Her Majesty's Government", interesting that a DUP politician should do so, don't you think? Maybe he's not guilty of climate denial (although he is), perhaps his sin is Republicanism?

Stormont Assembly members have voted no confidence in the erstwhile Minister. "Tommy Gallagher, SDLP, accused Mr Wilson of "political sabotage of an important public awareness campaign"." However, it's hardly the first time he's got on the wrong side of the green movement as he's in favour of Heathrow expansion, in favour of nuclear power, opposes the creation of an environmental protection agency, in fact he seems an all round odd choice to be an environmental Minister at all.

Irish left blogger Splintered Sunrise notes that even(?) page three models seem to have a better understanding than the minister with her tips on having an eco-friendly valentine's day (which manly consist of staying in bed). Unfortunately Wilson is not so unusual nor unpredictable that some people can't play climate deniers bingo.

You can sign the petition to give him the boot here.
You can watch the “insidious New Labour propaganda” that attempts to help people cut their fuel bills here. Scary stuff.
Further reading: Marcus Brigstocke - brilliant stuff.

Calling all the dot comrades

This Sunday sees the return of the Carnival of Socialism after a bit of an absence. The Mustard Seed is the proud host but the Carnival is often only as good as the pieces that have been submitted to it - if we all do our bit and submit a couple of good left blog links each we can start the new carnival season with a bang.

They don't have to be posts you've written yourself - just ones you've spotted that you think have a quality to them. You can email your suggestions to Jack and he'll put it all together. Simple ain't it?

Severn Barrage: some thoughts

A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to go a discussion about the Severn Barrage, but I didn't go because it sounded boring. However, the plans have recently created a bit of a stir in some circles because the "green" community is resolutely against the idea even though it would essentially make a massive contribution to the amount of renewable energy being produced.

As I understand it the barrage is basically to be stretched right the way across the Severn estuary harnessing the power of the tides for our energy consumption. The Ecologist points out that not only would the barrage cause "devastation" to the local environment, there were grave doubts about its ability to produce energy in a consistent and cost effective way.

Creating 18,000 construction jobs for seven years in building a huge renewable energy project is surely exactly the kind of thing that these Green New Deal types should be into - but they aren't. The government proposes creating loads of green collar jobs and they get all snooty - I'm not surprised some of the public are confused.

The Financial Times claims this means that environmentalists "want to eat their brown rice cakes and still have them" because they promote renewable energy, but only when it suits them. Fair enough in some senses. Addressing climate change is not the same thing as being nice to local birds and sometimes those tasks contradict each other even though they both fall under the general heading "green".

Paul Kingsnorth wrote a really excellent piece in the Guardian yesterday 'A line in the green sand' which really draws out these contradictions. He says that;

"A tidal barrage that turns a great river into a glorified mill stream is a desecration... while renewable energy is a good thing in principle, if schemes end up, like their conventional forbears, as centralised mega-projects that override local feeling and destroy wild landscapes, then they become precisely the kind of projects that people like me cut their teeth trying to stop..."

"Environmentalism is surely inspired by a sense of wonder at the richness of the natural world. Without that inspiration, it becomes the kind of bleached, technocratic, office-bound variety so common today, which pushes for the taming of rivers, mountains and wildlands in the name of making the ever-expanding human economy more "sustainable". Desperate to seem grown up, serious and economically literate, many greens seem to have become terrified of talking about the things that motivated them in the first place. Beauty. Wildness. A connection to the non-human, the remote, the untamed."

Obviously the grown up greens he refers to here are not reflected in the Green Party who claim "this barrage is an irresponsible and wasteful gamble" and endorse the stop the barrage now campaign, along with a number of other environmentalist organisations.

Where Paul is wrong, I should say, is that green types are not all products of the same kinds of inspiration as he is. I've never been up a mountain and don't want to either. I accept that nature is alright, but I'm not going further than that. When people start talking about wildness, and untamed nature I start eyeing them nervously wondering if they're about to start chanting. That's just not where I'm coming from.

The effect of pollution on human beings drew me into the green movement and got me enthusiastic. As I became more aware of how urgent the issue of climate change was this kept me there. Trees are ok, I guess, and I don't want to see a planet run like a factory - everything with a use and a use for everything is a frightening idea. I like diversity, in people, in politics and in the environment. I like towns and cities, they fascinate me in a way that a hedge doesn't.

However, where I think he's right is that combating climate change is more than simply producing greater amounts of energy in a more carbon neutral way. We have to challenge how we live and why, and attempt to draw visions of better societies, that are happier, more sustainable and free up our imaginations. In short we need to learn to live more lightly. If we simply turn the planet into our factory we wont survive.

New dynamics in racism

Racism is not a new phenomenon, nor is it confined to one part of the globe. But at different times and in different places its contours shift, and its dynamics can change. Consequently those who oppose racism have to rethink and reappraise their approach and priorities.

The economic meltdown has sparked government ministers, never ones to feel shy about using the immigration stick, into directly counter posing migration and the economy. The first person to do this recently was probably Mr Woolas but Home Secretary Jackie Smith is in the process of tightening up the visa requirements to enter this country from a whole swathe of countries. This, on the back of tougher citizenship regulations, it's clear that the government is taking this opportunity to make life harder for many migrant workers.

Far from being the preserve of working class people racism is present in every strata of society - I'm looking at you Carol Thatcher. The government is attempting not just to legitimise fears but actually seeks to promote them. Anything that turns criticism away from the government and their friends is worthwhile in their eyes.

Its not all doom and gloom of course. The possibility of an earned amnesty for illegal immigrants in London, courtesy of the Greens getting it onto the agenda, certainly points towards those who don't swallow the idea that the financial crisis means attacking the conditions of migrants.

We live in a far more cosmopolitan country than the one I grew up in, where "mixed race" relationships are accepted without comment, where the number of foreign born workers is far higher without rivers of blood anywhere to be seen, where the most outrageous forms of racial abuse are no longer accepted as part and parcel of everyday life.

Unfortunately, whilst many forms of racism have declined, others have moved to fill their place. Anti-Muslim bigotry is pretty much a modern phenomenon, stoked by the tabloids and the war on terror and sometimes given some kind of secular or progressive gloss by those who should know better. Whilst you would never see a Sun frontpage attacking "blacks" these days illegal immigrants, Poles and Muslims are still fair game so we, the left, shifted our focus in the defence of vulnerable communities.

With new protests by unemployed workers, fighting for the right to work, it's important that any support we give to that struggle does not play into the new dynamics of the period. Partly because migrants are not the enemy and any restriction on movement will make workers' lives worse not better. Partly because it can legitimise the right's response to these actions and allow what could be a victory to be turned into something far darker.

It's no use complaining that the protesters don't "really" mean it, that they are simply expressing class interests in a nationalised way. The problem is, of course, that they are doing both - raising legitimate worries about the availability of jobs and calling for a prioritisation of British workers over imported labour. The unemployment figures are not rising due to foreigners, Christ knows who would do the jobs they left unfilled if they were all to decide to leave the country. They are rising due to wider economic problems.

This is a crisis of capital and is, in general, taking place at a higher level than those companies that are laying off workers. Tough regulation of the financial sector, (re-)nationalisations, international co-operation, abolition of the anti-union laws, investment in the "real" economy are all good old fashioned leftist ideas who's time has come once again - and if we ignore them then all that will be left is for workers to fight each other over the scraps.

If we allow a lack of vision on our part to give free reign to those who would pit ordinary people against each other then, well, that's no good at all. We live in a time when fears over migrant labour could be extremely damaging to our society, and cause great personal pain to some individuals. Fighting for the right to work is good a cause, no question, but the context puts a great deal of pressure on us to ensure we don't swap one problem for another.

Sticks and stones: the saga of Thatcher and Clarkson

For me the key thing is that along with the right to offend there is always the right to be offended. Those who've gone out of their way to be casually offensive, or even if they've put great thought into the hurt that they've caused, should understand that it's no good throwing up your hands in horror when the chickens come home to roost.

That doesn't mean that everyone who's offended is right to be, or has things in proportion, but it does mean that faux shock that anyone should object to the things that you've said is not something I give much credence to. Personally I think there are worse things in the world than being offended, particularly if it's some general offense rather than someone being personally obnoxious, but it's a natural reaction sometimes.

Carol Thatcher's golliwog remarks are completely unremarkable coming from a supporter of the backwards part of a reactionary ideology - but her "I was only joking" stance, where the joke appears only to have been in the wheeling out two tired racial stereotypes (calling a black tennis player with French connections a "frog golliwog") is less offensive than it is fatuous.

Unfortunately she wasn't sacked from the BBC but simply wont be welcome back at the One Show. Not for the casual racism you understand, but for her complete refusal to accept she was in breach of the behaviour that's expected in the workplace. Less thought police and more ensuring the BBC, as an employer, is not allowing racism a free reign in the institution. Not political correctness but a rejection of bigotry in a diverse workforce. Fair enough to my mind.

The "only a joke" excuse is not just the fall back position of hardened twats everywhere, it completely misses the point that the so called humour aspect of the abuse makes it worse, not better. It's not friendly banter between friends but the off hand put down of the contemptuous laugh.

Which brings me onto Clarkson. Clarkson, Clarkson, Clarkson. Sigh.

Now, I didn't even know that Gordon Brown had a problem with one of his eyes and assumed the "one eyed" part of his remarks displayed an unusual wit, albeit X-rated wit, for the buffoon. I just thought he was calling the man a cock in an original way but, alas, it was simply an attack on his disability. Disappointingly, this was a sign of nothing more than a fetid set of values.

However, what Clarkson said is quite interesting in itself. According to The Independent;

Speaking in Sydney, Clarkson compared Mr Brown to the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, after Mr Rudd had just addressed the country on the global financial crisis.

He said: "It's the first time I've ever seen a world leader admit we really are in deep shit. He genuinely looked terrified. The poor man, he's actually seen the books. [In the UK] we've got this one-eyed Scottish idiot, he keeps telling us everything's fine and he's saved the world, and we know he's lying, but he's smooth at telling us."

Smooth? Brown? Are we sure he was talking about the person we thought he was?

Anyway, he's been let off because he's apologised for having a go at Brown's disability, as he should, and I'm a firm believer that genuine apologies are meaningful things. However, Clarkson has form and he's unlikely to change his ways anytime soon.

He's protected because, unlike Thatcher, he's talented (despite using his powers for evil) and is an asset to the corporation, bringing in viewers. Thatcher is completely replaceable and has never said anything as remotely interesting as Clarkson, even when he's not on form.

Of course, that's the problem. Thatcher wont even be a footnote in the big book of fools, Clarkson will have to have an entire chapter to cover the distortions, the abuse, the sneering, the misogyny... the list goes on. He's employed for his ability to say shocking things in an "amusing" way, so they're hardly likely to sack him for it when he misjudges the mood, but of the two he's the one who does the most damage through his access to the air waves.

Right or wrong Clarkson's outburst is far closer to what many people might find to be an acceptable part of banter, on this occasion, than Thatcher's dogmatic and unimaginative racism. We expect him to offend because it's part of his job and perhaps that's what should be giving us pause rather than the qualities of the man it's how he is employed to use them.