Re-instate Professor Nutt

It's just a few days since I was denouncing the government on its idiotic approach to drugs and in revenge they've sacked the only sane person they had on the subject, Professor Nutt, who headed up their independent body on drugs policy. Independent in this case meaning if you say things they don't like first they'll ignore you, then sack you if you keep at it.

Nutt was guilty of stating facts about the risks involved in taking drugs. As Nutt stated on the radio tonight if the government want policy to be a moral stance against drugs then they should be honest about it but not expect scientists to back them up when the evidence points to the weakness of their case.

This is another example of when the facts contradict government policy the facts have to be swept away. As Mark says "Perhaps something like this has been necessary in order for the public to start to see government drugs policy for what it is. They are not interesting in evidence, just political posturing."

Johnny Void has got a campaign up and running. Join it. Join the others. This sacking is one part of this government's consistently authoritarian and moralistic approach to social policy. It can't go on like this.

Guest Post: When Economics Meets Democracy

This guest post from Matt Sellwood, Green Parliamentary candidate for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and fellow blogger (here and here) is part of my short series in economics and deals with democracy in the economy.

“In the factory there exists a dead mechanism, independent of the workers, which incorporates them like living cogs” - Marx

Now, I'm not an orthodox Marxist – but on this one, Karl had a point. Ever since I can remember, I've found it bizarre that so many people fight so hard for democracy in the political sphere, and yet seem content or even approving of the fact that most people are governed by a tyranny in the economic sphere. Few people seem seriously to question the idea that, at work, a rigid, army-like hierarchy is the way to organise ourselves. Many progressive organisations still take this view – let alone the rest of society.

It hasn't always been this way. Even in America, supposedly a country in which free enterprise and private ownership is imbued within ones DNA, there is a rich tradition of rebellion against the complete lack of democratic control which characterises our relationship with work. No less a figure than Abraham Lincoln regarded 'wage slavery' as an evil almost parallel to chattel slavery, although that aspect of his politics is not taught prominently in the classroom. Similarly, John Dewey, one of America's leading philosophers, called for the elimination of;

“business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press...[industry must be changed] from a feudalistic to a democratic social order...[and unless these goals are attained] politics will remain the shadow cast on society by big business. The attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance.”

A similar tradition exists in the UK, although our current workers organisations are sadly wedded to a model which accepts management's right to rule, and labour's right to win concessions from them. Very rarely are the preconceptions on which this model is based challenged – and yet surely they must be, if ordinary people are to gain the confidence, skills and economic awareness which are so vital to playing a full part in political life.

Lenin might have glorified the educative potential of the factory in teaching the proletariat 'discipline and organisation' - but my understanding of history tends far closer towards the perspective of Rosa Luxemburg – hierarchical work organisation leads simply to 'the regulated docility of an oppressed class'. I also tend to agree with Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, that the existence of a 'coordinator class', trained and empowered to manage the work of others, actively undercuts the possibility for social change even in countries which are ostensibly socialist.

Luckily, all of this is one of those areas in which the Green Party, in principle, is streets ahead of a lot of the traditional UK left. This, from the Manifesto For A Sustainable Society, serves as just one example:

WR600 A Green economy must be a more mutual economy, in which industries and enterprises which are run by and for those who depend on them and are affected by them play a significant role in the economy. We believe that the international co-operative principles provide the benchmark for such businesses. This means that the Green Party must enable both the creation of new mutuals and the greater involvement of stakeholders other than investors in existing businesses.

The trick, of course, is in the implementation. The Green New Deal, for example, the flagship £44 billion economic policy of the Green Party of England and Wales, has little to say about the cooperative economy, and essentially accepts the premises of Keynesian economics. It does not, at its root, challenge the way in which work is organised in our economy, or the experience of people at work. It accepts, largely, the concept of hierarchical work for wages as 'a good thing', despite the wellspring of far more radical ideas in existing Green Party policy.

What can we do about it? I'd suggest a far more coherent and concerted push for support and development of cooperatives across the UK. Every council should have a Cooperative Development Agency, complete with start-up funding, low-interest loan stock and advice. Business that are 'too big to fail' should, where possible, be split up, mutualised and made into cooperatives – and businesses that clearly have a social use, such as Vestas, should be reopened along cooperative lines to manufacture items that fulfil a social good. And, right now, individuals should start taking a lead, by investing money into schemes like Rootstock, which provides capital for radical cooperatives which challenge the economic status quo.

Of course, it is also incumbent on us to recognise that cooperatives can, very easily, end up managing their own exploitation by capitalism. Cooperatives in mixed economy societies do tend to produce better results for their workers, but not always for society as a whole – driven as they are by overall market forces. As Joseph Kay put it in a recent contribution to the anarchist newspaper, Freedom:

“Self-managed exploitation is not just a neat turn of phrase, it is a recognition of how capital rules social life. It does this both vertically through the person of the boss, and horizontally, through market forces. Many anarchists focus mainly on the vertical rule of workplace hierarchy, and so see workers’ control as a stepping stone towards libertarian communism. However, it’s not a stepping stone, but a cul-de-sac.”

Personally, I wouldn't go that far. While it is certainly true that market forces have a way of suborning even the best of intentions and institutions, cooperative working is a good in itself. Even if it only teaches the workers involved about a new mode of relating to their workmates, it is a good thing. And, often, it does much more than that – instilling a new sense of pride, community ownership, and solidarity throughout the society in which it is based. At its most capitalist (cf the Cooperative Group in the UK), the cooperative movement is still streets ahead of normal, hierarchically organised firms.

For me, the words of Revd Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, President of the UN General Assembly, encapsulate the world I am fighting for: “

The anti-values of greed, individualism, and exclusion should be replaced by solidarity, common good and inclusion. The objective of our economic and social activity should not be the limitless, endless, mindless accumulation of wealth in a profit centered economy but rather a people centered economy that guarantees human needs, human rights, and human security, as well as conserves life on earth. These should be universal values that underpin our ethical and moral responsibility for the stewardship of the Earth for all living things, ourselves, our children and grandchildren and all future generations."

If we want to succeed - lets not exclude the places in which we work and produce from that vision.

Beware the bloggers, they kill councils

This is one of the strangest blogging stories I've ever read - and I've seen some corkers!

It seems that 15, yes 15, councillors have resigned on mass from Somerton council leaving the body unable to conduct any more business. It seems they were hacked off with being criticised on the internet. really.

The Guardian explains that "The walkout came after blogger Niall Connolly branded some members "jackasses" and referred to one leaflet as being "like a Nazi call to arms"."

Which seems to be about the strength of it, which suggests to me that the councillors were a little bit too uncomfortable with democracy and scrutiny. Surely if the blogger was telling lies they could take legal action, but if he just had an alternative vision of what they should have been doing with their positions, or simply telling the world what they were doing, well, it seems like a poor reason to take their ball home to me.

I took a glace at the photos of the councillors and a more internet friendly, non-backward bunch I could not possibly imagine. Mind you, I have a very poor imagination. I will allow Muck and Brass to recount in their own words how it felt when the councillors caved in (my emphasis);

"The Dunny hasn't had many meetings where the car-park was absolutely crammed and that was the first clue to tell you that something was afoot. Inside it was much the same with all the seats taken and standing room only. A rough head count suggested that 160 people had turned up for the meeting and they included a pretty broad spectrum of the community... then, about 33 minutes into the meeting, it all started to go Pete Tong.

"The Vice Chair stood up, put on his jacket and started a brief speech about how he was sick and tired of something or other and how he was going to leave it all up to the Town. At that point it seemed like he was presenting his resignation and this stunning news was greeted by the audience with rapturous applause. This seemed to trigger of a convulsion of action on the part of most of the rest of the council. As one they rose up and the Chair was subject to a proverbial avalanche of resignation letters before he himself resigned. Clearly a rather well orchestrated action but whose point was rather lost on those who were watching with a growing sense of wonderment. As the sheep filed out, a euphoria spread through the hall and everyone there shared their own 'Berlin Wall' moment. Freedom. Heady days indeed."

Sounds glorious!

I've been flicking through the archives and for the life of me the blog simply seems to be a site dedicated to proper scrutiny of the town council. I've not read the entire thing, obviously, but if Somerton council does not like being compared to a "clown council" then I suggest it does not explore more deeply into the internet where rather harsher language resides.

Let this be a warning to all those other councils out there. The bloggers are coming - better run and hide!

Interview with David Doherty, Green candidate for Glasgow North East

I'm very happy that David Doherty, the Green candidate in the Glasgow North East by-election, has agreed to do a quick interview with The Daily (Maybe).

You mentioned in your opening statement that housing is one of the key issues in Glasgow and you're on the board of a building renovation charity. What are your top priorities when it comes to this issue that's clearly close to your heart?

Having seen many of the types of housing in Glasgow North East, I think the Green New Deal is an example of how the Government could be using public money in the time of a recession to assist those on low incomes living in sub-standard accommodation.

There are parts of Milton, Possilpark and Springburn where over 40% of households are in fuel poverty. This means almost half of residents are spending more than 10% of their income on heating their homes, and I think spending Government money on increasing energy efficiency should be a priority.

In addition, a Green New deal will support jobs in construction, and the Government should be doing a lot more to have renewable energy and building renovation at the top of energy policy. Everything from solar heating to sustainable transport will help the constituents in the area, and it is an issue which is close to my heart!

As a supporter of the Green New Deal how do you think that this kind of socially and environmentally conscious Keynesianism fits with a longer term vision for fundamentally transforming the way our economy works?

The Green New Deal is not the most radical policy in terms of what the Government could be achieving. All that is being asked for is a universal home insulation programme to retrofit Scotland's homes over the next 10 years, as well as investment in renewable energy, sustainable transport and investing in local scale projects to give long term employment to those without jobs at the moment.

We have not seen this happen with the Westminster parties, and that is one reason I am standing in the Glasgow North East by-election. Investing in renewable technology research and commercial development should be a priority for the Government rather than financing nuclear power, a next generation of nuclear weapons, constructing new motorways or subsidising the aviation industry. If we want to fundamentally transform the way our economy works, we should be planning for climate change in the future and a future where oil will be severely depleted.

That means planning the economy for 50 years rather than 50 days, and transforming our economy to be sustainable for people and the environment. The Green Party wants long-term planning for the economy, and the Westminster parties are offering nothing more than business as usual. They have failed to take up the proposed Green New Deal, and they will fail on meeting any targets for taking measures to change our economic system to be truly low carbon, or even adapt to a future of climate change and depleted natural resources.

I've just read that Glasgow City Council's Director of Childrens' Services, Margaret Doran, has been given a pay off of £278,000 when the council decided to break up her department. How do you feel about this?

Certainly I would prefer Children's services was not broken up and a Director could continue working to protect children in Glasgow, rather than children's services suffering under another departmental re-organisation. I would hope the pay-off is in accordance with protocols linking years of service and performance to such a large payment at a time when public services are facing massive cuts over the next few years.

I was interested to see you're part of the eco-congregation and I'm interested in the interaction between faith and politics. What role do you think religious belief has to play in politics today?

I have found there is a lot of overlap with religion and politics today in areas such as social justice, the environment, international aid, and the treatment of the most vulnerable in society. Politicians should have a good knowledge of the ethical and moral issues which some policies may encompass, and religious groups have a part to play in educating the decision makers.

The eco-congregation network, for example, is a network of Christian churches who have an interest in the environment. They have been very active in campaigning for a strong Climate Change Bill for Scotland, and they are now one of the largest environmental campaigning groups in Scotland.

It was great news to see that the community garden North Kelvin Meadow was recognised with a certificate of merit in the Beautiful Scotland awards, especially after all the problems they've had with Glasgow council. How do you think one Green MP could help deliver support for small, local projects like this?

Community consultation has been deteriorating in recent years, and in cases such as the North Kelvin Meadow, a Green MP could make the difference at Westminster when legislation is being drafted and implemented on planning and development.

Certainly our existing MSP and Green councillors in Glasgow are working hard to deliver support for small local projects, and the more Green MPs we have at Westminster, that means more voices to make sure Government policy supports local projects which are bringing communities together.

To get involved in the campaign click here

Belgium rents out Dutch jails

Interesting article in the Guardian Weekly on the news that the Belgian government is hiring out prisons in Holland left empty due to their declining prisoner population. The Dutch government was due to shut eight prisons leaving 1,200 wardens out of work but the soaring crime rate in Belgium has stepped in to their rescue.

The illiberal nature of the Belgian penal system, which hardly uses tools like community service, has seen the prison population expand at record rates. This puts pressure on everyone and the article states that "Prison staff are exasperated and take frequent industrial action, and the inmates riot at any excuse." I suspect 'any excuse' is an exaggeration, but let's leave that one side for the moment.

What's interesting about the situation is that Belgium is going to try to solve their situation by building eleven new jails and renting out one in Holland rather than taking at look at what the Dutch have done to reduce the number of inmates they house. Instead of learning about how they have reduced their crime rate over the long term and, the possibly connected fact, that they use non-custodial options like community service more frequently, the Belgian authorities are determined to get tough - which is why their prisons are at 150% capacity and their crime rate continues to increase.

Whilst I've no massive objection to this as a short term measure (although reintegrating prisoners back into the community might be more difficult if they are housed in a different country) clearly the Belgian authorities should be looking at how to reduce the amount of crime not simply focus on dealing with the increasing number of criminals. Sadly this seems unlikely at this time due to a previous scandal around early prisoner release which seems to have soured the political debate.

Greens stand aside in Birmingham for Salma Yaqoob

Over the last couple of weeks Birmingham Green Party has been balloting its members on whether to stand a candidate in Birmingham Hall Green, the target constituency for Respect's Salma Yaqoob.

Last night the executive committee met and ratified the decision of the members in the constituency who voted 83% in favour of stepping aside.

The very small minority who were opposed to the move argued that the involvement of hard left groups who believe in "armed revolution" and the (undoubted) fact that Respect and Green Party diverge on a small number of key policy issues was too great a barrier for us to take this decision.

To stand aside, they argued, meant to endorse everything they stand for and everything every faction of their organisation stands for. The majority of members saw things differently.

The fact that Hall Green is neither a national nor local target for the Greens means that our resources would be better spent on those areas in Birmingham where we do expect to do well. Most Party members also recognise that, as a small party, the Greens need to work with others from a number of political perspectives in order to be most effective. It's no use simply arguing (as the 'no' side did) that if a candidate wants our support they can always join us.

So, for example, the fact that both Caroline Lucas and Salma Yaqoob have indicated that if both were elected to Parliament they could work closely together was extremely persuasive. Salma's support for Green candidates in the North West and West Midlands at the recent European elections trumped concerns that others in Respect campaigned against us.

It was this history of friendly relations, going well beyond nice words, that made it possible for those arguing to stand aside for Yaqoob to win the debate. In my view Yaqoob would make an excellent MP and she has a serious minded, long term campaign that means that her election is a possibility. I for one wish her the best of luck.

Newsflash: Norfolk Tories backwards arseholes shock

I'm referring to this story in the must read Watton and Swaffham Times which describes how a Tory Parliamentary hopeful is facing a "quick fire" deselection in the South West Norfolk constituency.

The candidate in question, Elizabeth Truss, who is also a Greenwich councillor, is a right wing Tory who "advocates free market economics and public sector reform". Gulp.

Sadly she is not being ousted by a bunch of Red Tories determined to shift the Conservatives towards Bolshevik style revolution and compulsory Che Guevara shirt wearing.

Truss was only just selected for seat on Saturday but literally hours after the votes were counted she is facing a fast tracked deselection process because, it has been revealed, she had an affair in 2004-05 (which was in The Mail in 2006). She could be done and dusted by the end of the week.

You're right to look bemused. She isn't advocating a new law making affairs with Tory MP Mark Field mandatory, it's something that happened in her personal life some time ago that doesn't effect her ability to do the job in the slightest, then or now. It should be noted that no one has suggested the affair makes Mr Field unfit to be an MP. Although he is.

However, it appears that perhaps the issue is (slightly) more complex than a bunch of backward inbreds unable to cope with the social changes since we abolished public flogging for disrespecting the Queen's ducks. It seems there are also grumbles about the fact that some Tories felt pressured to choose a woman at all, with members citing arm twisting from national HQ to select the A-lister for the safe Norfolk seat.

So they are backwards on two counts. First, for having some sort of outdated bizarre morality that says a past affair is any of their business. Second, because at least some of them didn't want any woman at all. She'd probably get nail varnish all over the economy or something.

Alternatively, it could just be that they are a bunch of rural malcontents who have a history of confrontation with their candidates. One previous MP, Gillian Shepard won the nomination only after the initial selection was hoofed out, and then her successor Christopher Frasier won the nomination after a bitter row where his rival refused to make his main home in the constituency. Frasier is standing down after the expenses scandal revealed that he had claimed second home allowance on his Norfolk home just like he said he wouldn't. Naughty.

This time round the fuss is that she is a woman who has actually had a life. Whilst men can have affairs and be MPs apparently the Tories tolerate no such behaviour in their womenfolk. One local Conservative officer is quoted as saying "She must think we are idiots in Norfolk”. Well, she might not but I'm certainly moving that way.

Guest Post: Should we have a maximum wage? Stuart Jeffrey

Thanks to Stuart Jeffrey for this first post in a short series of articles on economic themes I'm going to be publishing over the next couple of weeks. Today we take a look at the idea of a maximum wage.

Thirty years ago a newly elected Conservative government attempted to quash a ground breaking report by Douglas Black. The report, commissioned by the previous government, was a clear indictment of the impact of poverty (and relative poverty) on health. Just few hundred typed copies of the Black Report, as it come to be known, were ever published but the impact of the report was significant and has been a basis for public health thinking ever since.

Moving forward 30 years, The Equality Trust explain in graphic detail how it is not only poorer countries that have poor health outcomes, but also that countries which have higher inequalities have poorer health outcomes. These poor health outcomes are not just relating to physical health but stretch across the full spectrum from mental health to societal health (for example violence, community cohesion and social mobility).

The evidence is clear, an unequally society is a poor society. The evidence is also clear that Britain has become more unequal; this quote is from National Statistics: "Between 1981 and 1989 disposable income in real terms grew by 38 per cent for those at the 90th percentile. This was more than five times the rate of growth of 7 per cent for those at the 10th percentile.". A quick look at their graph of income since 1971 shows that the gap between rich and poor has grown continually except for a short period in the mid 1970's.

National Statistics also report that '1992 to 2006/07 was a period of relative stability' for income inequality. The minimum wage, introduced in 1999, has had an impact for some but it simply hasn't achieved the narrowing of relative poverty that is required. Two further mechanisms for household income are necessary, a citizens income and a maximum wage.

Maximum wage is simply capping the maximum earnings of an individual, either through the use of a tax bracket that returns 100% of the earnings to the state or through primary legislation to prevent employers paying over a particular ceiling. Practically speaking, a 100% tax bracket looks like the most effective method of implementing a policy as it should capture unearnt income and income from multiple sources (assuming that people don't dodge tax!).

While there are those in favour of a maximum wage, such as Andrew Simms from the New Economics Foundation, there are of course detractors on the right of the political spectrum. It is easy to see why it is the right wingers who are opposed, given that the majority of high earners are on the political right and the rest of the right are desperate to join them. The Adam Smith Institute claims that the country's most productive workers (doctors, business owners and bankers - it does actual put bankers in this category) would move abroad. They go on to suggest that the best was to reduce poverty is through the 'Trickle Down' of wealth.

Standard right wing thought but the evidence goes contrary to this.

Firstly the concept of 'Trickle Down'. It is surely time for this phrase to be consigned to the dustbin of patronising and obnoxious terms. Trickle down suggests that the elite should hold the nations wealth and provide a little cash to the underclasses to stop them starving. It suggests that people are not equal and shouldn't strive to be. It keeps the ruling class, er... ruling.

The concept of trickle down serves to widen the poverty gap within countries by enforcing and expanding the existing inequalities. Sure, it will address absolute poverty and may increase a nations overall wealth, but that is not what needs to be addressed.

Secondly, the claims that productive workers will flee the country are without evidence. Of course the Adam Smith concept of 'productive' is a little different to the concept held by the majority of people. Ask the man on the Clapham omnibus whether he considers nurses or bankers to be more productive!

Concerns about highly skilled workers fleeing the country are also misguided. In Cuba, doctors are paid around twice the national average wage, compared to around four times in the UK, however Cuba has one doctor for every 174 people and the UK has one for every 600. There would be a balance of greed versus good community that people would weigh up before emigrating for financial reasons. If society was cohesive and enjoyable, it is unlikely that most would want to leave for a country where the quality of life was poorer. There is far more to life than hard cash.

Assuming that the majority of the arguments currently against a maximum wage are false, there remain just two questions. Firstly would a maximum wage actually help to reduce inequalities and secondly what should the level of maximum wage be?

If the approach of a 100% tax bracket is used and the taxes are reinvested in citizen's income / health care / regeneration / redistributive schemes, then it is clear that inequalities will reduce. The longer term picture of a 100% tax bracket gives similar results to a maximum wage through primary legislation over time as companies stop advertising jobs with huge salaries. As total income, including unearnt income from profits, could not exceed the maximum, money would need to be spent somewhere in society over time (unless company's reserves get bigger and bigger - maximum profits legislation anyone?). The gap between the rich and poor will start to close.

And as for the maximum wage... let's start at £150k and reduce it by £5k a year to £100k. Anyone not able to survive on £150k or even £100k needs to think very carefully just what they are doing to society and the planet.

Interview: Salma Yaqoob

Many thanks to Salma Yaqoob for agreeing to this exclusive interview where we discuss Respect, politics in Birmingham and democratic reform.

This week has seen three major political events; demonstrations marking the anniversary of the war in Afghanistan, the BNP appearing on Question Time and the postal strike. Politics seems to be becoming increasingly confrontational. What's your approach to this?

I don’t feel the issue of Afghanistan is such a confrontational one any more. In fact, the opposite is increasingly the case. A recent Times opinion poll showed that over 65% of the electorate favoured the troops withdrawing. Of course, it was not always like that. I remember well how difficult it was to speak about Afghanistan after 9/11. For example it was not uncommon to have abuse hurled at you when doing Stop the War campaigning in Birmingham city centre around that time. Thankfully those days, and that sense of isolation over the issue of opposing the occupation of Afghanistan, are gone.

Unfortunately, the issues of industrial conflict and racism are probably going to be very much with us in the coming period. As I write the BBC News are carrying stories about the deepening nature of the recession. At a time when we need more government investment to kick-start the economy, all the mainstream parties are proposing cuts, cuts and more cuts in public spending as a solution.

This invariably will provoke reaction from trade union members wanting, quite rightly, to protect themselves and their families from a crisis not of their making. Invariably, the political consensus of the mainstream parties will be accompanied by the politics of scapegoating. I am expecting there to be an increase in racism and votes for the BNP in the coming period. All the more reason for the broadest unity left wing and progressive forces in the coming period.

Many of my readers may not know much about where you stand on specific policies. I wonder if you'd be happy to say a few words about where you stand on a few? First nuclear power, second refugees and asylum seekers and third, democratic reform.

1. I think the recent United Nations Security Council vote in favour of the need to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons is an important development. However it is only a first step. We need binding and equitable international agreements on reducing nuclear arsenals. And those holding the biggest arsenals need to be the first in showing the way. One very simple but significant step this country could take would be to scrap Trident.

2. It is over 60 years ago that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written. 
In many ways it is a remarkable and inspiring document in its commitment to uphold protects the rights, freedom, dignity, respect and equality of all people. And of course it was written in the shadow of the Holocaust. We must never forget that it was so-called civilized Europe that gave birth to fascist inspired genocide. Our attitude to those others escaping oppression and tyranny today is simply a hallmark of how civilized a society we are.

Britain has a moral responsibility to provide a safe haven to such people and it is a disgrace that tens of thousands of refused asylum seekers are currently being kept in destitution, denied the right to work in order to drive them out of the country.

The way the mainstream parties promote and pander to reactionary and racist ideas about refugees and asylum seekers is deeply worrying. It was noticeable that in the recent edition of Question Time that one quote of Nick Griffin's that nobody mentioned was his comments about boats carrying migrants from Africa to Europe should be sunk. None of the panel dared to go near the issue of asylum and immigration except to present themselves as being ‘tough’ on it. Undercutting racism and prejudice on this issue is a critical task for the left today.

3. I support the call for proportional representation. British politics is suffocating because it is so dominated by the politics of tweedle dum and tweedle dee. The implementation of PR will allow more genuinely democratic expression and enable progressive opinion to better punch its weight. It is ideas, the contest between them, and the commitment to implement them, that will really breathe life back into a political system ossified by a lack of real choice and discredited by expenses abuse.

As a local councillor what do you think the key issues are that face local residents?

I am an elected councilor for Sparkbrook ward and I hold weekly advice bureau. There are three complaints that I hear again and again: lack of local housing, jobs and school places. Birmingham has shocking levels of overcrowding and a chronic shortage of council housing. It is to Labour’s eternal shame that they presided over a halving of the council housing stock in the city.

Similarity, unemployment is critical. A recent study in Birmingham found the with the recession beginning to take its toll, 37 per cent of adults of working age in the city do not have jobs. Finally, many of these same families are having to travel across the city every morning to drop their kids off, often to differing schools, because of shortage of school places, plus we have no secondary school in my ward.

I think it's fair to say that your party, Respect, has been through some radical transformations in its short life. How would you characterise the organisation today?

Making very healthy progress! The SWP are no longer with us and one consequence has been to make it easier for Respect to adhere to the thinking behind its original conception.

I always wanted Respect to be an organisation that seeks to progress the totality of the left, and not just our bit of it. I feel, for the first time, we are actually starting to implement that concept. For example, I am proud of the position we adopted in the European elections where we openly campaigned for Green candidates in the North West and West Midlands because they were better positioned to stop the BNP. And I am proud that we unequivocally came out in support of Ken Livingstone in the last London Mayoral election.

Respect is a very young, small party of the radical left with a real electoral footprint in two key areas. If we can emerge after the next general election with our support intact or even stronger I think our future will look bright. And I am confident we are going to emerge from the General Election in such a position.

You're running a strong campaign to win a seat in Birmingham at the general election. Good luck. What contribution do you think one lone MP can make whether we end up being under a Labour or Tory government?

Thank you. The only positive contribution a single MP can make is to use the platform to advance progressive issues. And that is the single reason why I am standing.

I have taken the hard route by going outside the ‘mainstream’, despite no shortage of approaches from them. But I have chosen this road because I value my independence. I want to be able to speak my mind about the issues I feel strongly about – war, racism, and inequality - unbeholden to anyone. My hope is to help stimulate genuine debate and discussion, rather than merely re-enforcing the status quo, which has caused many of the problems in the first place.

We need more independent voices in parliament. I hope after next May myself, Caroline Lucas and others will be adding ours to the likes of George Galloway in being prepared to use the office not only to speak truth to power, but to address the democratic deficit such that the concerns of millions of people as expressed through popular social movements are no longer ignored, but genuinely represented.

Weekending: 25th October

Hello peeps. Let's see what the week has brought us...

Blogs:

• Cardiff Green Granny is always where the action is
  
• Brent Greens have started blogging
• As have East Dunbartonshire SSP
  
• Dreaming Neon Black lefty blogging
  
• Sam For Hilton the first Australian Socialist Alliance councillor
  
• Root stock ethical trading
  
• Crust of the grouch, nice
  
• I like this stuff by Ady Cousins
  
• Take a weird break - wonderful
  
• Have I never linked to you? Let me know in the comments.
  

Posts:

• What's going on in the prison service?
• Jenny jones describes the police as armed and dangerous.
  
• Don't give pyramids makeovers.
• Brockley Central on guerilla gardening.
  
• Nick Griffin's bad science.
• Channel Four fact checks his QT statements.
  
• What happens when we imprison kids for being foreign.
• The way home improvement programs should be.
  
• If God had wanted me to be accepting of gays he'd have given me the warmth and compassion to do so. Classic Onion.
  
• Did I miss your gem? Leave a comment.
  

Diary:

• Mon 26th October Gay Marriage: Peter Tatchell vs Maire Daley, Camden
• Fri 30th October Vigil against homophobic murder. Trafalgar Square.
  
• Sat 21st November People's Charter National Conference, in Camden.
• Sat 28th November Hands off the People of Iran AGM
  
• Sat 5th December National Climate March.
• Have I missed off your event? Let me know.
  

Great and lively stuff (h/t Bob Piper):



Afterword: I'm still mucking round with the right hand column with the aim of making it more usable. I was comfortable cutting down the green links because there's a central list of greenie blogs I could also point to. The other kinds of blog are more tricky, so that's still a work in progress.

I have added a little reading list of books that have caught my attention but fear not, I'm not going to get excited and turn the sidebar into a jumble. That way lies madness. However, I am considering a redesign... we'll see.

Professor Griffin speaks

Hands up who knew that the British actually evolved separately from the rest of the humanity? In fact it turns out that the Brits have been keeping themselves to themselves on the British Isles subsisting on an unchanged diet of shepherd's pie and smokey bacon crisps for many thousands of years.

Due to problems at the passport office no-one had been allowed to leave or enter these shores for all that time. Of course, the combined ultra-leftist institutions of the BBC, Women's Institute and the RSPCA have conspired to keep this information from us, inventing such events as the Roman occupation, the British Empire and the 'fact' that we once were not an island.

It's well known that during the last ice age the bulldog spirit meant the approaching glaciers were greeted with a shrug whilst darkly muttering "This will bring the house prices down". We all know migration is unpatriotic even when faced with a wall of ice. They think we'll accept anything. The next you know they'll be claiming the KKK isn't just a little club dedicated to basket weaving and the occasional day trip to Bognor.

Of course Professor Griffin's remarks have not been met with universal acclaim. First of all there is the complaint that this was no normal Question Time. Very true, normally the panelists and audience gang up on the Labour Minister who received a welcome break from harassment in this edition.

Secondly there are those who thought Griffin was not nearly obnoxious enough. Even his own deputy, Lee Barnes, has expressed concern that the BNP's trademark belligerent mendacity had been supplanted by an abstemious reluctance to air immoderate illiberality. Or words to that effect. For Barnes, the appearance was meant to spark riots that never came.

The flip side to this were those BNP activists who thought Griffin's back catalogue of bigotry and idiocy was not a strength but a barrier to creating a renewing force among fascists. Doubts have been raised about Griffin's ability to act as a national front man for the BNP whilst also being a bag carrier for fascism past. It reminds me of fans of long running bands who are split between those who want stuff from the recent chart topping album, the only one they know, to those who just want to hear the old favourites, no matter how unpopular.

"Give us the one about the Holocaust that never happened" one section of the crowd cries, met with shouts of "hug the Jews Nick, hug the Jews!" No wonder he looked confused, this was a crowd he was never going to please. He can't even get the Daily Mail on side, I mean how bigoted do you actually have to be for these people?

Report: Strong demo against the war

I attended the anti-war demonstration today in London calling on our government to withdraw the troops from Afghanistan.

It seemed well attended and lively, and although I don't really bother much with the speeches at the end, Green Party member Farid Bakht spoke very well from the platform I thought. I'm sure others spoke well too but I was off for a sit down and a natter with pals I hadn't seen for a while.

This report on Channel Four News is probably the best mainstream coverage I've seen of an anti-war demo to date and it shows how important it is to reach out to those serving in the armed forces as part of our struggle for a truly ethical foreign policy.

Oh to be in Germany

I've always thought the Germans were sensible folk. You wont have ever seen me criticise any German person or organisation such is the high esteem I have for each and every one of them. Possibly.

Anyway I've noticed another excellent example of their general superiority to the Brits. Rich Germans have launched a petition demanding the right-wing government impose higher taxes on them.

These bloated capitalists "say they have more money than they need, and the extra revenue could fund economic and social programmes to aid Germany's economic recovery. Germany could raise 100bn euros (£91bn) if the richest people paid a 5% wealth tax for two years."

They are asking the government to impose this special fat cat tax on the richest 2.2 million Germans because "The path out of the crisis must be paved with massive investment in ecology, education and social justice".

They recognise that this can only be achieved through taxation rather than giving to charity and so their appeal for direct taxation on their wealth, in order to protect the most vulnerable and the environment, is both far sighted and laudable.

Will Richard Branson, the Queen or Lord Sainsbury demand that they be forced to cough up? I've decided not to hold my breath.

Review: Frida Kahlo Viva La Vida

Wednesday night I went to see Frida Kahlo; Viva La Vida a one woman show at the Oval House, opposite the famous cricket ground. Despite the fact I had to 'play' Rockerfeller getting shot as part of some light audience participation I have to say it was blindingly good.

Gaël Le Cornec was mesmerising as the Mexican painter whose tempestuous passions burn a hole through her life. Whether it's her politics, her lovers, her art or the tragic accident that shapes much of her story Le Cornec overwhelms by force of personality.

Told from the end of Kahlo's life during the day of the dead celebrations you might have thought the show would be maudlin or full of nostalgia for good and bad times past. Far from it. Kahlo is portrayed as full of life, still railing against the injustices of the world and her failing body, experiencing the past with as much vivid emotion as any of her paintings.

But it is not simply the performance that made this such a exceptional show. The direction and set are used exquisitely to summon up the past. I found the inventive use of colours and music to be particularly striking in a way I've never quite seen before, although I could have done without the smoke machine.

One interesting aspect of the play is that although it revolves around Kahlo's reminiscences it does not feel like a historical tour of her life. For me that was a strength, although I wonder what it would have felt like to those who know nothing of the painter's life. I suspect the play would still be immensly enjoyable, although possibly a little more surreal and confusing - which is not necessarily a bad thing if it leads more people to discovering Kahlo's life and works.

Plays like this, in small theatres with small casts (in this case of one), can so often be a disappointment, this was not one of those occasions. In fact if small productions were always just half as good as this it would be a wonderful thing. Frida Kahlo Viva La Vida runs until 7th November.

No platform round-up

Obviously there's a lot of discussion about whether fascists should be allowed a platform like that of the BBC. Will they hang themselves if we give them enough rope, or use that rope to hang us? Does the election of two BNP members to the European Parliament change the game, or is it same shit different day?

As a service to the community I thought I'd round up some of the discussion taking place at the moment. If you've spotted other useful links (obviously I'm not linking to everything) please feel free to link to them in the comments as this is by no means comprehensive;

Reluctantly for Nazi Nick appearing on Question Time;

• Mark Thompson Keeping the BNP off air is a job for Parliament not the BBC
• Chris Huhne explains why he's going to debate the BNP tonight
  
• Leo Hickman Griffin's view on the environment and population can only be disdained on Question Time
• Norfolk Blogger denounces the left's attempt to stop Griffin's appearance
• Liberal England wants the BNP to get more publicity
• Tim Black thinks everything will work out fine
  

Fervently against Nazi Nick's appearance;

• Phelim gives a strong defense of no platform
• Joseph Questions Question Time
  
• Soloman's Mindfield thinks you should burn your TV licence
• Jim Wolfreys thinks we're repeating the French mistake
  
• Wilted Rose thinks the BBC got it wrong
• Though Cowards Flinch thinks beyond no platform
• Luna 17 is for no compromise on no platform
• Lancaster Unity asks why even invite the BNP?
• Lenin's Tomb on mainstreaming fascism
• Susan is displeased
• Jo weighs the arguments and comes down for no platform
  

General riffs on the theme;

• James recounts the time he debated with Griffin
• George Eaton thinks Frank Field is wrong on the BNP
• Sunny Hundal on how the left can deal with the BNP
  
• Scottish Greens report 'unbalanced' BBC
• Luke thinks it's all the Greens fault
• Mehdi Hasan thinks the BBC have done the BNP a favour
  
• Salman Shaheen investigates some of the issues in the BBC and the beast
• Socialism of the heart wants hope not hate
• Modernity has some selections of his own
  

Reports;

• The Times Griffin booed as Question Time begins
  
• BBC on the protests
• Morning Star on protests
• Guardian takes pics of the protests
  
• Socialist Worker on students blockading the BBC
• Lenin's Tomb rounds up the protests
  

A few additions;

• BNP to offer free didgeridoo lessons. DailyMash
• New Statesman reviews the QT event
• The FT's assessment
• Journeyman thinks it over
• Left Outside thought Griffin did very badly
• The Guardian reports that the BNP don't like it up 'em
• Rumbould on Pickled Politics has a scorecard of the panelists
• The guardian on Griffins 'not a nazi' claim
  
• Bob from Brockley has links and thoughts the morning after (also his live blogging is worth reading)
  
• Susan on Griffin's petard
• Madame Maiow is amused and dismayed in equal measure
• Doc Richard thinks the BBC needs more balance
• Finally Greenman has a pop as well.

Feel free to add more links in the comments although I shall leave my updating of the post there I think lest it become a full time job.

Drugs education

I don't know why but I just assumed drugs education would be better now than in 'my day' when it was a series of obvious lies interweaved with a smattering of moral panics and worst case scenario hyperbole. It looks like I might have been wrong.

I've just taken a look at 'ask frank' the government sponsored drugs awareness campaign that is supposed to help young people understand drugs without any of the scare stories or moralistic bullshit that characterised the campaigns in the past. When it was set up the idea was that it would be 'frank' about the fact that people take drugs because they enjoy them and, because they were truthful about that they'd also be able to raise awareness of the risks associated with drug taking.

Here's what they say taking cannabis is like;



I'm not impressed by this one little bit I'm afraid. Literally millions of people in this country smoke cannabis, even if just occasionally. This is not their experience. Anyone who has encountered the drug will know immediately that this video is a ridiculous caricature that sets out to scare people away from drugs rather than inform us about them.

Does this matter? I think so, yes.

Despite my hippy liberal leanings I'm not a great fan of most illegal drugs and don't take any myself. I do want people to be able to make informed choices about what they are doing to their bodies. The moment a government 'information' film goes out of its way to talk utter bollocks to further a different agenda it means that any meaningful or useful information they might also have to tell us is immediately tainted.

If you meet someone who's been smoking dope and they aren't the giggling, forgetful clown munching their way through the larder this film tells you about you understand you've been lied to. Then you meet more smokers and none of them are having panic attacks or behaving like a dancing buffoon and you think; "Actually this stuff is fine. They just don't like people having fun."

It seems to me that the government has two choices. It can tell the truth about drugs, informing the electorate of the benefits and risks of their behaviour in a measured and truthful way - or they can run a down the line anti-drugs campaign that involves ignoring the evidence and telling lies. Only one of these options is in the best interests of the people, and it isn't Frank.

UKIP and BNP sitting in a tree...

It's not been picked up in the news but yesterday in the European Parliament we had the rather distasteful sight of UKIP and the BNP representatives united together to attack the idea of tackling climate change.

Nick Griffin (BNP) described the whole thing as 'an elite scam' and then Godfrey Bloom (UKIP) backed him up saying 'the whole thing is a sham... a bogus hypothesis'. You can watch the edited highlights here.

As Will Straw says;

"The BNP claim on their website to be, “this nation’s only true Green party which has policies that will actually save the environment.”And while consistency was never their strong point (see, for example, this picture of Griffin standing in front a No. 303 Polish Squadron spitfire), their own environment policy appears to contradict Griffin’s views on renewables: "A BNP government will… develop renewable energy sources such as off-shore wind farms, wave, tidal and solar energy.”

Congratulations to Tory MEP Sajjad Karim for responding with;

"These two parties crave acceptance into the political mainstream, but their cloud cuckoo land views are repeatedly being exposed. I would like to think that after such ridiculous views have been aired in such a public environment that the public will see through their carefully crafted public image and consign them to the looney fringes where they belong."

I hope that's not my bit of the looney fringe, I've only just made it comfortable.

(h/t Ellee and Will Straw)

Confused and frightened BNP

This is a great little report from ITN that I spotted at LibCon over the escalating row between the heads of the army and heads of the master race, our would be uber-mensch, the BNP.

My favourite bit is where Col. Tim Collins describes the fascists as "confused and frightened" lashing out on issues that they "clearly don't understand". Like naughty, spoiled children.

I'm actually rather disturbed by the new trend of generals intervening in British politics, a trend I hope ends as of now. However even, or perhaps especially, the most harden zealots of the BNP must recognise that when Griffin attacks the armed forces or licks his lips in anticipation at their demise at the hangman's rope he isn't necessarily doing his bit to win the 'patriotic vote'. In fact he comes across as a bit of dick.

Indeed, coming as it does hot on the heels of the BNP deputy making a thinly veiled threat of physical violence against Bonnie Greer, a black woman who has dared to speak out against these neanderthals, they've been doing a good job of exposing themselves as violent meatheads this week.

These sorts of swaggering threats of murder and intimidation are hardly likely to endear the BNP to anything but their core support so they're worth highlighting more widely. I notice that Hope Not Hate has a project to collect together more positive responses to politics that Griffin's sad and confused ideology which may well be worth contributing to. (See here for anti-fascist events this week)

Serial Killers

I've just been listening to the radio where David Wilson, a prison governor who'd worked with serial killers, was on plugging his book, A History of British Serial Killing. Very interesting he was too, particularly when eviscerating Jack Straw (who, for clarity, I should point out is probably not dealt with in the serial killer book). He had a quite different approach to those normally write books on this subject.

His first point was that serial killers are boring, self obsessed and banal so when he set out to write a book about them his focus was on those they'd killed, giving them a voice. I think that's great.

Whilst Silence of the Lambs was a great film the idea that serial killers are some sort of semi-mystical geniuses superior to the rest of us clearly isn't true and may actually not be a very useful approach if we want to stop people killing each other.

His second point was that when you look at the victims of the serial killers, in the UK at least, they fall into five distinct categories. Children, old people, prostitutes, runaways and gay men. Which means, he claims, that if we're really interested in serial killers and want to protect society the best thing we can do is actually combat homophobia and protect vulnerable, ostracised groups.

He states that "No Dutch serial killer has ever targeted prostitutes in Holland" because "every serial killer needs access to a suitable victim" who is not economically productive or does not have the protection of the state. "The victims of serial killers are those who live on the margins of our society, who are voiceless, who are powerless."

The fact that serial killers are able to kill numerous times is because they pick on groups that are less integrated into mainstream society. The fact they choose the most vulnerable does not speak to how we deal with the killers but how we need to address the way we marginalise certain groups. I was extremely impressed with this approach.

New Report on Sex Trafficking

There's a piece in the Guardian today confirming something that I've long thought. The figures on sex trafficking are "a model of misinformation" manipulated to feed a political agenda.

Please do read the piece, it's eye opening.

Whither Malta?

If, like me, you never miss an edition of Malta Today you'll have been pleased to see coverage of the leadership election of the Maltese Green Party, Alternattiva Demokratika (AD), where they profile one leadership candidate "Michael Briguglio – the 34-year-old former Sliema local councillor, also the drummer and main songwriter of a Rage Against The Machine-style metal band, Norm Rejection".

Sounds like my sort of guy! Although he does think that the party "should not even consider not contesting general elections." Which raised my eyebrows.

When asked why the AD did not do very well at the European elections Briguglio says "The message was too bland. We must be more radical in our policies. In the past, AD has given the impression that it was reluctant to talk about certain issues. In politics, you have to have an opinion.”

Malta Today continues "Briguglio is also active member of radical leftwing organisation Zminijietna – Voice of the Left, which constantly lambasts globalisation and economic liberalism, among other targets."

“Green is left, and left is Green,” he muses with a smile. “I don’t believe in the old-fashioned, 19th century style of Socialism. But the future of the Left is undeniably Green. Either that, or the ‘Third Way’, which doesn’t work for me.

Well, good luck in the election.

We have ways of letting them talk

As I'm sure most of you know by now the Nazi British National Party (BNP) has been invited to take part in this week's BBC Question Time which has provoked an outpouring of angsting among the political classes.

Firstly, you have those who are for what's called 'No Platform' for Nazis who disapprove that the BNP will be appearing at all. This is a perfectly respectable position and you may wish to attend on the 22nd October when Unite Against Fascism will be protesting against the BBC's decision to play host to these far right goons.

The argument goes that by granting the fascists airtime on the most prestigious BBC political programme we allow them to adopt the veneer of a respectable political party, which they are not.

This is not a question of simply disliking the BNP. I dislike the Tories or UKIP but I've never argued that they should be denied a political platform - the fascists historically have used these opportunities to deny democratic rights to others - sometimes through using legal means and sometimes through plain and simple violence and thuggery. This is not something I want to see introduced into British politics. I explored what this means for free speech more thoroughly last year, here.

The problem with this position is that it tends to require everyone to agree that the BNP should be persona non-gratas. Once there is slippage (and the BBC is a very big bit of slippage) it tends to collapse everyone else's refusal to debate them - which means the most militant anti-fascists either leave it to Tories and liberals to make their arguments for them or they drop no platform - it's not an easy one to answer.

The second set of people who have been actively fretting are those who have, understandably, left aside the question of whether the BNP should appear, which we can do little about, and moved on to new questions. Liberal Conspiracy are concerned that the panel is just too middle class or there is this Telegraph blogger who is concerned about whether he should watch the thing at all.

The panel is now confirmed and aside from BNP fuhrer Nick Griffin we have Sayeeda Warsi, Jack Straw, Chris Huhne and Bonnie Greer. I can't say I'm inspired, but then these are by no means novices either and sadly they may well do a better job of countering the BNP than BBC journalists are at the moment.

Bonnie Greer, the black American playwright, seems to have met with the most internet disdain and I've seen both left and right commentators use the fact that she's not from the UK against her being chosen for the panel. I'm not sure these people have a sense of irony when they want to exclude foreigners from debating against bigotry but I doubt it's useful to pretend that we do not live in a multi-cultural society but rather use it as a strength.

Certainly BNP doesn't like the idea singling Greer out they said "What does the BNP have to do to be invited on to the BBC's Question Time?... Win one million votes and two seats in the European Parliament. What does Bonnie Greer have to do to get on to Question Time? Fabricate black history and be paid for it." Simon Darby, the BNP's deputy chairman, added: "If Bonnie Greer wants to enter the political arena, she's got to realise if you want to play with the big boys then sometimes you're going to get hurt."

Is that a thinly veiled physical threat? It looks more and more like Greer was a good choice and all credit to her for having the courage to appear. she has my support in what will be a nerve wracking experience.

The other thing about the 'fantasy panel' game that some are playing is that there seems to be a consensus that it's muscular politics that are in order, delivered by big men. I'm a fan of Darcus Howe, for instance, but to suggest that he's the perfect person to debate Griffin is odd. For me it summons up a vision of distressed yaks bellowing at each other across the plains - who's going to win that kind of debate? Not us.

If we're going to play this game, and it is interesting if not useful, then why try to counter the BNP at their strongest points when we should be looking to attack their weaknesses? A quiet, softly spoken woman who makes rational and informed points is precisely the sort of person the BNP will have the most difficulty dealing with.

I'd far rather see an excessively camp and witty opponent rip Griffin to pieces than some old warhorse whose culpability in devaluing the current political establishment is matched only by their inability to think beyond the myths of the 'white working class'.

In judo people learn to use their opponent's strengths against them - let the BNP's belligerence and unthinking populism (otherwise known as bullshit) work against them by exposing it in a personable and lighter fashion not mirroring it.

We need to step back and assess what's at stake over the Question Time debacle. The answer to any sane person has to be... almost nothing. The sky is not going to fall in, the brown shirts wont suddenly have a street army to drag away the gays, Jews and trade unionists just yet. Griffin is not a master hypnotist and we should not jump at his shadow, but I do want to see him humiliated if possible.

If you think about how much time politicians of the main parties spend in convincing the electorate they can win in any particular election it's an irony that the BNP's opposition spend a great deal of time trying to convince everyone that every vote for the BNP could make a fundamental difference... exactly what any political party wants the electorate to believe in other words.

They are not the master race they are very stupid little boys. Let's stop helping them by telling everyone what a credible threat they are when, in the vast majority of areas in the country, they just aren't even on the radar.

I'd rather we started being a little bit more subtle when it comes to this side of anti-fascist propaganda. Politics has never been at its most effective when conducted on the level of a shouting match. Demonstrations and the like will always have their place in the essential armoury of those who oppose fascism, but it does not mean we need to regard the BNP as anything more than the sad and pathetic arseholes.

Don't shoot the messenger

I've not mentioned David Mitchell recently because it's not cool to display your infatuations too prominently, but his article today on how we get the politicians we deserve has got some people worked up enough to call him a fascist, a warmonger and, most viciously of all, a C-list comedian.

Now it's blindingly obvious that he's A-list. Whether you like him or not it is a statement of fact that currently he's on every channel, apart from the barbaric ITV, often simultaneously and always in high viewing slots. Add to that the book, the film, and the newspaper column it's fairly crystal that C-list he ain't.

Mind you the fascist and warmonger attacks are no less crass in that the accusers demonstrably did not understand the article and therefore felt the need to name call rather than deal with an argument too sophisticated for them to grapple with.

Not that Mitchell went out of his way to produce a comfortable read, particularly for those of us who find ourselves generally opposing wars. Commenting on the fact that Mussolini was paid by MI5 to help keep Italy in the First World War by organising physical attacks on the anti-war movement;

"Money well spent, in my book. I might have felt differently if I were a Milanese pacifist who spent the last months of 1917 pissing blood, but there was considerably worse shit going down at the time and MI5 presumably figured that £100 was a pretty good price for keeping an army in the field, even an Italian one."

I think we need to accept that Mitchell does not subscribe to the school of revolutionary defeatism but this in itself does not make him a fascist, simply someone who tries to understand why people do things. But here's the crunch. Whilst the critics in the comments box have tended to see his argument as pro-fascism or pro-war in fact his main thesis is quite different;

"I completely agree that this sort of cynicism is immoral. What I don't like is people claiming it's all the work of a few malevolent patricians – a self-serving ruling class getting off on their own acquisitive misanthropy – rather than a political community responding obediently to our loudly expressed democratic will."

The article makes for less comfortable reading than usual because instead of blaming others for the state of things he attempts to suggest we might have some collective responsibility for the way things are and the actions of our government, even when we've verbally expressed that we disapprove. Well that's bound to make some people angry.

Whilst he recognises that there are individuals who make sacrifices and oppose the policies and practices of actually existing capitalism (and there are those who don't give a toss) there are also;

"millions of us in between, being told we can have it both ways – reduced carbon emissions and cheap air travel, an enlightened policy towards the Middle East and affordable petrol, cuts in spending but not services – because we won't vote for anyone who doesn't."

It seems to me, with caveats, that there is an element of truth in this. While we pass the blame to others we absolve ourselves of responsibility without necessarily challenging the way we may benefit from those actions. It's not nice to have that pointed out to you.

Millions marched against the Iraq invasion but did not challenge the economy that makes oil such a precious commodity nor did large numbers of people feel compelled, en masse at least, to escalate the protests when it became clear that Blair felt that once he invaded we'd all fall into line and 'support the troops'.

As such we expressed our dismay at what the government was doing, but we were not actually dismayed enough to take the required personal risks or sacrifices to actually change the course of government policy. The Mitchell thesis speculates that we can have it both ways. We take advantage of the cheap oil whilst not letting it stain our consciences. The politicians become our sin eaters, taking on the burden of actions in which we are all complicit. Our anti-war credentials established we then re-elect the government.

I should say I don't think this is 100% correct in that it ignores some key factors, such as the imperfections in our electoral system and the way that if we feel powerless to change something we don't tend to try, but that doesn't actually make us hypocrites. There are a number of institutions designed to prevent us expressing ourselves completely freely, like the police, and some designed to shape the political debate, like the press.

The idea that we are responsible for our society (and our planet) is extremely important and that simply passing the blame on to others simply isn't good enough, even when they are bigger than us. That does not mean it would be easy to change the direction we're going, but if we genuinely want an ethical foreign policy we have to be prepared to follow up on that desire, going beyond token gestures and moaning.

n.b. I have a very fuzzy head today so if this doesn't make sense I have an excuse!

Weekending: 18th October

Let's see what the winds of fate have thrown at us this week;

Blogs;

• I'm a photographer not a terrorist.
• UNISON member Sean.
• New Green Cllr Debra Storr.
• Reheat Britain.
• Radical History Network.
• Veg Web (as recommended in the comments)
  
• Climate Camp blog.
  

Posts;

• Jo Anglezarke has been reading Tony Juniper's new book and likes what she sees.
• Brockley Central on line cancellations.
• In defence of political correctness.
• Tabloid Watch examines the Jan Moir episode.
• Phil looks at twitter vs the media.
• Top ten out of touch Tory statements.
• Veggie spider. My inspiration.
  
• Lovely picture from Iran.
• If you're going to hold a placard claiming you're not a racist - try not to seig heil at the same time!
  

Diary;

• Saturday 24th October Stop the War Afghanistan demonstration 12 noon in Hyde Park
• Friday 30th October Vigil against homophobic murder. Trafalgar Square.
  
• Saturday 21st November People's Charter National Conference, in Camden.
• Saturday 28th November Hands off the People of Iran AGM
  
• Saturday 5th December National Climate March.

YouTube of the week - if hip hop had come from Leeds;



If I've missed your blog, your event or your pearls of wisdom drop them in the comments box - in the weekending slot self-aggrandising is positively encouraged!