Women in Parliament

As it stands there are 125 female MPs out of 646 in total, which is 19.3% by my calculator. Sadly one unintended consequence of a Labour defeat at the coming General election will almost certainly mean a dip in the number of female MPs, just as it did in 1979, the last time Labour was booted out of office (that time it went from 27 to 19).

As you can see from the graph below, the '97 Labour landslide was a massive leap forwards for equal representation, a leap forward that the other parties did little to contribute to. Alas, depending on the level of catastrophe Labour faces we could see the number of women in Parliament plummet. I think that would be a very bad thing.

Which led me to wonder about the European Parliament. Unfortunately I had to go and add this up myself (by counting from a list of MEPs) as I couldn't find it on the net, this should be right, I've counted to twenty one before.

Year	Women MEPs
1979	11
1984	13
1989	12
1994	16
1999	21
2004	20

That's 25.6% of the current crop - so maybe Proportional Representation helps even if having twelve male UKIP MEPs does skew the sample a touch.

Jim Jay's top five "women in Parliament" facts;

• In the early eighteen eighties the first mass movement for extending suffrage included some fantastic women, including, for example, Mary Walker and Susanna Inge.
• The first woman elected to Parliament was in 1918 and was a Countess no less. Countess Constance Markievicz was a radical Sinn Fein MP who was in jail when elected.
• However, Markievicz was not allowed to take her seat. The first women to take her seat in the House of Commons was a merely a Viscountess, the Tory Nancy Astor in 1919.
• Labour's Margaret Bondfield was the first female Minister in 1924.
• We know who the first (and only) female Prime Minister was, so lets skip over that.

You can do your bit to stem the reduction of women MPs by supporting Caroline Lucas at the next general election, of course. That might help.

Saturday's Stop the War Coaltiion conference

A little bit late but I thought I should get round to writing a report on Saturday's Stop the War Coalition's AGM. You can read the official report here, and I've seen three other reports; from Joseph Healey, Weekly Worker and Craig Murray. It's not all complimentary I'm afraid, but I'll come on to that.

In general it was a very good conference I thought, certainly better than I feared it might be. Smaller than the last one I went to two years ago certainly and, to my mind, slightly directionless but in some ways that's much better than being too narrow in scope.

For me one of the best speakers, among some very good contributors, was Daud Abdullah (from the MCB) who was very softly spoken and moderate in tone and was wickedly funny on the idea that the West has "common values" when some of us thought bombing countries was a good idea and others thought it was a touch mistaken. That might indicate a slight difference in values.

Another excellent speech was from Seumus Milne who was very convincing on the fact that US bombs and troops don't represent the strength of its imperial power, but in fact its failure. I should say there was an undertow of friendly disagreement on the new regime in the US which was never explicitly tackled.

Speakers like Tony Benn and George Galloway tended towards seeing this as some sort of positive shift and others, like Sami Ramadani and Jeremy Corbyn, seemed to see little difference between the administration of Obama and that of Bush. A broad movement should have space for both of these positions even though, frankly, I think the latter is more a product of dogma than anything else.

Never-the-less there was an unacknowledged, but correct, shift away from the "don't attack Iran" slogans towards a re-emphasis on what's happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There was an excellent and very funny contribution from an Afghan journalist, Mohammed Asif, who was particularly damning of how the aid money gets spent.

The Green Party was ably represented by Joseph Healey who was squeezed onto the platform at the last minute after some difficulty getting someone onto the platform at all. Joseph talked about the recent Nato demonstration in Strasbourg and the role that the coalition has here in terms of influencing and communicating with anti-war movements elsewhere in Europe and the world.

In particular I thought he was very good on the need to move away from a society where we are producing arms for sale and use towards renewable technologies and sustainable economics.

There were a number of motions, the majority of which were completely uncontroversial - which you can read at the Stop the War website. There were excellent ones on women and war, on the EDO demonstrations, and Pakistan for example. Sadly the affiliation of Hands off the People of Iran, an organisation that opposes war and sanctions as well as providing solidarity with Iranian trade unionists, feminists and other progressives, was again blocked.

The speeches against came from the chair, in his capacity as chair (where else does this happen?), and a particularly vacuous individual who actually said that if Hopi wanted to support the progressive movements against the Iranian regime they should hop on a plane and do it in Iran. But where do they campaign against sanctions or invasion from?

I've been told to go back to Russia a number of times in my life but this is the first time I've heard go back to Iran. I look forward to this person denouncing those who provide support to anti-occupation movements in Afghanistan and Iraq and demanding these people go to these countries if they want to fight the regimes there. No? Thought not.

What was the longest and most controversial debate? The members database! I think a few members were a bit frustrated by the fact that they weren't able to raise organisational points at their AGM and I have some sympathy with them as the conference did seem organised in a rather hap-hazard fashion. For example we were told that we couldn't amend motions and then the chair started amending motions - very confusing. However, in general the day went very smoothly considering it was organised on a shoe string budget.

I think the concept of a broad movement that brings in people of all kinds of political positions under one tent is absolutely essential. The coalition supplies this, albeit imperfectly. It does let itself down though, and not just on Hopi.

I refer here to the esteemed Craig Murray who has been an invaluable resource in exposing the hypocrisy of the British State's foreign policy. In what amounted to an excellent speech he made a rather misguided remark. Sexist even, but not something you'd be surprised to hear in any workplace or cafe. Brace yourself, he said;

"You know, I make no claim to being politically correct. So I can say that, if I were married to Jacqui Smith, I would probably use a lot of porn too."

Now, the moment he said it I thought "Oh Craig, you've let yourself down there" and there was a frisson that rippled across the hall, directly after the laugh. Now in my opinion the thing to do was to ignore it. It's one small remark that amounted to, probably, less than 1% of the speech. A remark that should not have been made, but let's keep it all in proportion.

However, leading SWP member Elaine Heffernan thought it necessary to make a point of order on this and rudely demand that Murray withdraw his remark (which he didn't do, I think he was a bit taken aback by the response). It seems to me that, as a human being, if you can't let one tiny remark in the context of an excellent speech go then you're a sociopath. More to the point I suspect that the STWC will now treat Murray as a persona non-grata (they've not put his speech up on their site for example), this is quite worrying more so because it stems from a minor remark that took less than a second to say and was outside the main scope of the speech.

If the coalition wants to be broad and inclusive it should be aware that haranguing people who are not conversant with the ins and outs of left-speak then it will limit it's own growth. This kind of attempt to insist that people do not speak like the rest of the population is far more misguided than the initial sexist remark. If the coalition is to build on the excellent work it has done so far and renew itself for the challenges ahead it does need to throw off some of these dangerous habits of trying control what people say and how they say it.

Met apologises for assault and false imprisonment on protesters

According to the BBC five protesters have been awarded a substantial pay out of £85,000 and have been given an apology by the Metropolitan police.

The demonstration in question was in 2006 outside the Mexican embassy where the protesters were concerned at the killing of Indymedia journalist Bradley Will in Oaxaca City. They were assaulted and then falsely imprisoned by police officers.

The police apology includes this;

"It is accepted that your arrest was unlawful and that any forced used on you during your arrest was therefore an assault and battery.”

One of the protesters said;

"This is a democratic country, supposedly, and people have a right to protest and for me it appears that the Metropolitan Police has some sort of policy that prevents people from protesting even if it is perfectly legal and peaceful."

Goods news if we are moving to a point where we are beginning to hold the police to account for their actions.

At the end of the day most people become political activists to make the world a better place, not to get into constant battles with the police. The cops should not be the story - but until these injustices stop they'll unfortunately remain on the news agenda.

Brown out - Green power

It's been announced that Vestas, the world's leading manufacturer of wind turbines is to cut 1,900 jobs, mainly from the UK and Denmark. This is exactly the opposite of what should be happening right now and the government should step in to ensure that these vital jobs are not just saved but bolstered with new employment in the manufacturing of renewable technologies.

However, the news comes as the company records that their profits are up - so why make 9% of your workforce redundant if you're making money? Well Vestas claims it has an overcapacity - in other words governments and energy companies, mainly across Northern Europe, aren't buying enough of their products.

The company is not cutting jobs in the US because the government there has increased its commitment to renewable energy and is in the process of placing orders, but it has shelved plans to open up a new factory in Wales because it is particularly frustrated with the government in the UK.

The chief executive of Vestas told the Guardian;

"The UK has large wind resources and it's a priority for the government but the orders didn't move. That's why we're telling employees that we're not reinvesting there... In the UK nimbyism is a huge challenge. This is outside of Whitehall territory.

"People talk about big offshore parks. Why not put in onshore parks? The cost of installation is half compared to offshore."

So instead of ensuring that manufacturing jobs are secure and enabling the opening of a new factory in Newport the government (both local and national) have put so many barriers in the way that this can't happen at the very time when it is crucial for the economy that we avoid lay offs where we can. It's not even that the company has been hit by the crunch - this is purely a Brown made disaster.

Here in the UK we shackle the renewable industry with red tape and a luke-warm commitment that consists largely of press releases in order to free up the government to press for its favourite forms of ecological destruction, coal and nuclear. Absolute madness.

It's becoming clearer and clearer that if we want green power we're going to have to get Brown out.

Our furry friends

Personally I'm a cat person. Cats have a dignity that's completely alien to, for example, a dog whose whole sense of self seems to revolve around its pack leader. Cats are great, but dogs? They're bloody animals!

Anyway, having spent a chunk of the weekend re-proofing the proofed Green Euro-Manifesto (ooohhhhh!) I have to confess I read the section on animals peeping through my fingers as I hid behind the sofa. It's not my natural territory and I've always kept the arguments for animal rights at arms length, a current of thought that many of my fellow Greens are dead keen on.

Now, thankfully, it didn't offend my tender mainstream eyes. The section is even called Animal Protection rather than the ethically tangled Animal Rights so I didn't even have to worry about the deeper philosophical implications of the way we'd framed the issues.

Although I generally agreed with the policies outlined I suspect I'm probably approaching the issue in a different way than many Green Party members. For example, I'm opposed to fox hunting essentially on the basis that the ban annoys the rich rather than particular concern for The Fantastic Mr Fox who, after all, is a carnivore himself.

With these issues in my mind I noticed this story about the teenage Bull fighter, Jairo Miguel Sanchez (pictured), in Spain. He was gored and almost killed when he was 14 and is now back in the ring at 16. This has caused a bit of controversy in Spain (health and safety gone mad again) provoking this response;

"Bullfighting, like tennis, is best learned as a child," Jorge de Haro, president of the Mexican Association of Fighting-Bull Raisers once told reporters. "Bullfighting must be unconscious and a child isn't conscious of the danger or risk. The younger, the better."

I don't recall tennis involving the deliberate killing of a fine beast for the voyeuristic gratification of a large crowd - but perhaps that's something we should introduce. It may well improve the British showing at Wimbledon if there was more of an element of risk involved.

I asked my friend, who's from Brazil and quite green and progressive, whether Bull fighting was popular in Brazil. Her response was interesting in that she said that it's popular in the north (where she comes from) and, I think with a little pride, she said it was more dangerous than in Spain. "It's nice to watch, but not so nice to take part in. Lots of people are killed."

I can't say even I think that sounds "nice to watch", but maybe that's hypocritical on my part as I'm rather overfond of my bacon sarnies. So she may well be being more consistent than I am. I'm not anti-animal it's just I'm unashamedly anthropocentric and so tend to see animals in terms of our needs. So I don't like the idea of bull fighting - but this is probably based on the idea that it doesn't sound very nice rather than grounded in a firm ethical position.

I suppose I have a question rather than any answers; how central is the concept of animal rights / welfare to green thinking? It's certainly a key element in the ethics of many green activists, and was the route that they got involved in the first place, but is it an essential component or simply one branch of many in the green spectrum?

It's an epigemic!

I'm sorry. I just can't take this seriously. I do apologise but the British press are just going bonkers over this - where's your stiff upper lip guys? Some random person on the radio just said they were "calm"... urgh.... good? Unless you have a reason to think you're going to die of swine flu you have no reason to think you are going to die of swine flu. End of.

For example, I think the normally sane and rational Daily Mail is guilty of irresponsible fear mongering when it says 40% might die by the weekend and that "Face masks could prove useless in combating the killer swine flu virus, experts have warned." Please, please, please get back to the high quality journalism Mail.

The Guardian coverage has been mixed. Tanya Hyde was rather interesting, placing the flu outbreak in some sort of context. Whilst Mike Davis writes one of the stupidest articles I've seen for some time, and I can assure you there's a lot of competition! I suppose they are trying to cater to everyone - from people interested in the news to facile idiots who enjoy end of the world scenarios. The whole spectrum.

Gold star goes to The Independent who not only have the best coverage today (both in tone and content) but are also the only national newspaper not to have the porcine plague as a lead story on their front page. Kudos.

On the other hand Aaron has written a great post giving everyone sensible advise on how to cope with the aporkalypse. James points to a great 70's swine flu propaganda film they could re-use. Classic.

XKCD has the illustrated guide that no one should be without and this photo shows how swine flu got into the human population. It is "safe for work" but still disgusting!

Interesting bit of news: Israel has said it should be renamed Mexican flu because it's better to offend Mexicans than pigs, or something.

Phil writes a much more measured and level headed piece that doesn't down play the seriousness of dying of flu but heavily critiques the way the press has dealt with it. Too sensible by half in my book.

Many a happy hour did I spend listening to the Subhumans in my teenage years. Never has their song The Pig Man (3 mins 46 secs) seemed more appropriate. Enjoy.

34th Carnival of Socialism

Hello, and welcome to the 34th Carnival of Socialism. Pull up a virtual seat, open your favourite brand of ethical Cola and enjoy this fortnight's round up from the Socialist blogosphere, feel free to add your own suggestions in the comments. Thanks to those who sent in suggestions before hand.

I did this at short notice so it may be slightly demographically skewed - apologies for leaving out so many excellent lefty bloggers, these are the quality posts that I've read in the last two weeks so I'm bound to have missed many - regard it as a taster.

First let's have some reports

• Jess Hurd is a lefty photographer who took this snap of a stop and search in progress.
• Joseph attended the annual Stop the War coalition conference in London
• HarpyMarx reports on the Left Economic Advisory Panel conference
• An Unrepentant Communist reports on the Rome rally launching the left's Euro-election campaign.
• Jon Rogers hopes to encourage UNISON members to vote for the left.
• Lenin reports on the sacking of a key union activist.
• At Stroppyblog they take on the council leader who is cutting a swath through education.
• Jacob attacks the "students leaders" who wont support lecturers' strikes.
  

Now some historical themes

• Reading the Maps looks at the changing meaning of Anzac Day
• The Nation of Duncan remembers the Hillsborough disaster.
• Splintered Sunrise has been reading and wonders whether some of Marx's writings might be a bit embarrassing for today's Marxists.
• Mick Hall remembers trade union leader Jack Jones.
• Charlie Pottins takes a historical look at the fight for trade union rights.

A number of bloggers have discussed Labour

• Cruella thinks that the plans to address the gender pay gap are crumbs from the table.
• Neil Clark just interviewed Alice Mahon a long serving MP who just left Labour.
• Sue regrets her decision.
• Dave Osler reflects on being spammed by the Labour Party.
• Next Left says the best way to support Climate Minister Ed Miliband is to protest against him.
• Gill George asks us to prepare for public sector cuts.
• On a similar theme NUJ left asks what are public services.
• Some Roses Are Red takes a different tack and attacks the Tories - in song!
  

Some reflections on international affairs

• Jews Sans Frontiers look sat Iranian President Ahmadinijad's recent controversial speech.
• Left Luggage thinks the Left in Britain romanticises international movements while ignoring their organising lessons.
• Greater Surbiton writes on Moldova's so called twitter revolution.
• Septicisle writes on the terror plot that never was.

And now some miscellany

• Arthur Bough looks at the way the media deals with health and safety.
• A Very Public Sociologist indulges his leftist train spotting tendencies.
• Owen Hatherley looks at policing, surveillance and protest.
• Liam wonders whether we are being too hard on police brutality.
• Lancaster Unity thinks the fascists are fraying at the edges.

Then there are some interesting cultural themes

• Madame Miaow takes Dr Who to task for adopting the role of army recruiter.
• Vicky attacks cookery programs for very similar reasons.
• Leftwing Criminologist asks is Rugby in League with big business?
• Benjamin Solah writes on the power of the image.
• At the Complex System of Pipes Dave says 'All Power to the Imagination'.
• Frank Owen discusses Nazi dating. Yes he does.
• There's a review of Soviet cinema at Socialist Unity.
• Faithful to the line has a class war haiku.

And finally

• Roobin asks whether the end is nigh.

As far as this edition of the Carnival is concerned - yes it is. The next Carnival is over at BoffyBlog on the tenth of May.

Green Left coalition elected in Iceland

When the rightwing government stood down in January amid massive protests the social democrats and the green left formed a caretaker government. This weekend new elections confirmed the green left coalition as the ruling government.

As you can see below the Left Green Movement won 21.7% of vote almost doubling their representation and the Socialist Democrats 29.8% also made slight gains at the expense of the rightwing Independence Party.

Parties		Votes	%	+/−%	Seats	+/−
	Social Democratic Alliance (Samfylkingin)	55,758	29.8	+3.0	20	+2
	Independence Party (Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn)	44,369	23.7	−12.9	16	−9
	Left-Green Movement (Vinstrihreyfingin – grænt framboð)	40,580	21.7	+7.4	14	+5
	Progressive Party (Framsóknarflokkurinn)	27,699	14.8	+3.1	9	+2
	Citizens' Movement (Borgarahreyfingin)	13,519	7.2	+7.2	4	+4
	Liberal Party (Frjálslyndi flokkurinn)	4,148	2.2	−5.1	0	−4
	Democracy Movement (Lýðræðishreyfingin)	1,107	0.6	+0.6	0	—

Cambridge's first ever Green Party councillor Margaret Wright was on the scene and she had this to say;

"Its cold here in Reykjavic today but there is an air of celebration for the Greens who have fulfilled expectations by greatly improving their number of MPs in the new parliament.

"Having been all over Europe to meet and work with Green parties, I have no doubt that the only difference between Green success at parliamentary level in say Germany or Iceland, compared to at Westminster elections, is proportional representation. Our colleagues in Iceland and across Europe don't understand how the first past the post system can still be used, delivering distorted majorities and blocking smaller, but popular parties.

"The result here is historic, but also clearly a major reaction to the economic crisis which has impacted on Iceland as much as anywhere. There is widespread anger at the behaviour of the conservatives who allowed the crash and the financiers who caused the crash - resulting in the collapse of the financial system. Globalisation, of which Labour in the UK said there was no alternative, has failed, and exposed everyone to a more uncertain economic future. The Greens offer hope and a fresh way forward, and that has been rewarded in Iceland today."

But whilst this is, absolutely, good news the proof of the pudding is in the eating and the new government now has to show what a left leaning government can do to protect the people in this harsh economic climate.

Weekending: announcements et al

It's the weekend once again, and here's my usual little round up;

• Firstly and most importantly a big thank you to Cruella for the invite to see her incredible comparing skills at work at The Comedy Pub last night. Check it out people.
  
  
• On Tuesday Craig Murray is giving evidence to a Parliamentary committee on British complicity in torture abroad. He expects a hard time and asks for a few friendly to turn up in the gallery. 1.45pm The Thatcher Room, Portcullis House, turn up half an hour early to get through security.
• On thee 4th of May "Turning strangers into citizens" in favour of the rights of migrants.
• On the 16th May there is a London demo to Free Palestine Assemble noon, Malet Street.
• On the 15th June the Guardian has a Climate Change summit. Register here.
  
  
• Political blogs are full of oddballs. Well, BNP ones anyway. (ht Weggis)
• Why does UKIP seem to produce MEPs keenest to get their snouts in the trough?
• Oh, and I see the BNP have been celebrating St George's Day. Photo evidence.
  
  
• Miriam Kennet, Green economics guru and Euro candidate, has a new blog.
• I'm compiling the Carnival of Socialism tomorrow - send me your gold dust!
• Also launched is the Stop Nick Griffin site, possibly the most important Green campaign in the coming Euro elections.

Letter of the week comes from the Guardian;

I am lucky enough to be comfortably off and in a secure job. I was therefore astonished to learn from your budget supplement that I will be left with more money as a result of the budget. What the hell is this government playing at making people like me better off at a time of unprecedented financial crisis?

Richard Miller, Whitstable, Kent

And finally, with the ANC victory this week in South Africa I thought I'd post up the President singing his theme song "Umshini Wam" as the press keep mentioning it but never seem to play it. Translated it means "Bring me my machine gun".

I'm fascinated by this as the idea of Gordon Brown coming on stage a singing a theme tune fills me with dread. A rendition of "money, money, money" perhaps, or maybe "I am the one and only."

Are they trying to poison me

So I was drinking this "Cola" I'd bought at the railway station - M&S Cola no less. That's right - classy.

Anyway, as I was drinking it I kept thinking "This tastes of vegetables... and not in a good way. Not that there is a good way to taste of vegetables of course."

In fact the taste got so strong and I was so bugged out by it I actually checked the ingredients. What do you know, M&S Cola has among its ingredients;

• Black carrot and,
  
• Hibiscus
  

The horror.

I mean once a carrot has gone black you throw it away don't you? And as for Hibiscus - surely it's confined to the hippy tea ghetto for a reason... to keep it away from decent clean living folk like me.

Do you know what? There wasn't even a single E number in it to take the taste away. Shudder...

Stick insects

You may well have seen the news that someone very skinny almost won the Australian "leg" of the Miss Universe contest. This story has sparked outrage and horror among some parts of the media-o-sphere although I'm finding it difficult to decide exactly what it is that has people so excised.

I mean there seem to be precious few voices saying that such contests are themselves tedious reinforcements of the most banal homogenisation of what passes for conventionally acceptable beauty. In fact most attacks on Stephanie Naumoska's rise to fame seem to center on the very opposite, that she does NOT conform to the accepted norms of beauty as laid down in the "almost everyone is ugly" statutes of 1832. It just makes a change that a woman is being denounced for being too thin rather than too fat, but that's as far as I'm prepared to agree with them.

Now I'm fully aware that the main front against "body fascism" is combating the tendency to strip literally every ounce of fat from the form to reveal that oh so cute skeletal look, after all if you take a look at the photo below of the Miss Universe Australia finalists I'm not sure it's immediately apparent which one is being singled out for being unnaturally thin.


But it cuts both ways. I don't want to replace one "perfect look" for people to fall short of with another one, just as dogmatic. Thin women do exist and they ARE normal - despite what a number of journalists appear to be saying today.

It seems to me that whilst we should be denouncing these bizarre outdated cattle markets for the sexist tripe that they are, what we shouldn't do is attack the women in them - particularly for their looks. Collecting a whole bunch of women with a very similar look together will produce a stepford wives effect, but that's the nature of the competition not a demonstration that thin people are somehow less than human.

Computer says... Green

It's just a bit of fun of course - but you might want to try out the EU profiler which recommends for you who you should vote for in the European Parliament elections in a few weeks (!).

Unfortunately I couldn't work out how to get a screen shot of my result but, rest assured, it was instructing me to vote Green - although apparently I'm less skeptical of the EU than they are...

Trampolining zombies: budget analysis II - the revenge

Our next Prime Minister, David Cameron, was certainly waxing poetic over the budget and, to my untrained eye, seemed to be scoring hit after hit after hit on the insipid, lacklustre budget that Alistair Darling presented to us. Although if you read some of the right wing press this morning you'd have thought he'd announced the formation of a government of workers and peasants soviets.

Continuing his theme that the government is dead on its feet Dave declared this is a "zombie government" although what brought the analogy to mind when facing the sprightly and animated figure of Alastair Darling heaven knows.

He then mocked the scrappage scheme, wondering whether this government could be hauled off to the knackers yard instead of the nation's bangers. This was one of a number choice barbs that will certainly have hurt despite having any real specific content.

My favourite was when he poured scorn on the over optimistic Treasury prediction saying they were less like a "U shaped recovery" but rather they seemed to be predicting a "trampoline recovery". Ouch. I'm awaiting cartoons of trampolining zombies as we speak.

Cameron's attacks certainly have a lot more purchase on reality than sections of the press who seem to think that a modest increase in taxation will lead to a "brain drain" (back to the zombies) and is evidence that New Labour is over, something Cameron seems far less inclined to shout from the roof tops.

This could be because it's hardly credible.

A 50% top rate of taxation (which is breaking a Manifesto commitment by the way) is pretty standard across most European countries whilst others have a far higher rate (like Denmark 63% and Sweden 59%), all countries we should note who often seem to do public services rather better than we do here. None of these countries are exactly hostile to business and they seem to be in a rather better position to weather the economic storms than we are at the moment.

Anyway, it's not that long ago that Labour proposed the abolition the 10 pence bottom rate of tax so I'm yet to be convinced of their Robin Hood tendencies (as seen in the Mirror, right) or Leninism (as seen in the Telegraph, below). It's also difficult to interpret the tax system we have in this country as actually progressive (see Dave Osler for some numbers).

But whilst Cameron is scoring easy hits on Labour's floundering battleship it might be worth considering what his alternative is, as it's not long before he'll be setting the agenda. It can be difficult to know because, understandably, he's been reluctant to provide the opposition (the government) with ammunition and so has confined himself mainly to tearing down proposals rather than painting an alternative vision.

It seems to me that the Tories have a very different economic approach to Labour, which is a big departure from a few years back when it would have been difficult to get a fag paper between them. Labour proposes big borrowing and big spending on schemes for economic recovery (coupled as I noted previously with cuts in public sector jobs, which could not happen at a worst possible time).

The Tories though seem to be going for the fiscal responsibility angle. Cutting public spending, public debt and taxation proposals which, if turned into an actually existing budget would lead to a massive "trampoline" curve of human misery.

Never mind George Osborne's description of the budget as the "death rattle" of the government - what about the genuine death rattles that the 'let the market sort them out' approach that a low tax, low spending budget could create. Starving our way out of a recession is all very well for the Etonians, not so great for those who've been laid off and desperately need the opportunities to get back to work.

But whilst Labour's instincts have been head and shoulders above the Conservatives I'm afraid that's setting the bar far too low when we are facing an unprecedented economic crisis and a critical point in the war against climate change - a war that we seem to believe we can ignore when it's out of newspaper headlines. This budget was a disastrous missed opportunity and Labour's lack of vitalism demonstrates that we need to look to far more radical alternatives in a time of crisis.

Random thoughts: budget day

Just a few random thoughts rather than a full on break down of the budget, not really in a number crunching mood I'm afraid.

1. We're moving into deflation for the first time since Macmillan. Not on the rail though where fares are still on the rise. Mr Darling, please do something about this.
   
2. It seems to me that cutting jobs at a time of rising unemployment is wrong. The PCS union agrees with me, Mr Darling doesn't.
3. There does seem to be a high element of chance in Alistair Darling's budget predictions. He's assuming the recession will end quickly and recovery will be steep. Let's hope he's right! (Just seen Phil and the IMF agree that this may not be so).
   
4. The car scrapage proposal is exactly the sort of wheeze that catches headlines whilst being utterly meaningless in the big scheme of things. Monbiot has a pop at it.
5. In fact, as Peter Cranie says, whilst the government has made a great play of the tokenistic green measures there is nothing of any significance to combat climate change in this budget. But they have set a target!
6. Pensions will be increased by 2.5% regardless of deflation (which might have meant a pension cut if the usual formula had been used). Good.
   
7. One Guardian columnist describes this budget as a demonstration of Labour's impotence. That's probably right. It looks very weak.
   
8. The BBC has a budget calculator for you to work out if you will be better off or not.
9. Best comment of the day was from Tim Dowling "Most of the people tuning in to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech will have had one question on their minds: "What happened to 'Cash in the Attic'?""
10. Odd story of the day. Adrian Ramsay (Green Party deputy leader) was pulled from a Radio discussion on the budget "due to the pending election"... that explains the absence of Labour, Tory and Lib Dem politicians then - not!
    

The police terror raid charade

In politics, as in comedy, timing is everything. For example, take the serendipity of the terror raid that arrested numerous Pakistani nationals and produced countless column inches on the death and mayhem that had been prevented. God bless the police, let's move on from all that nasty protest repression and dead paper seller business.

The press in particular seemed rather well informed about what these near-do-wells were about... in which case they might want to pass any evidence they have on to the police because the suspects have all been released without charge. Not a single one of them charged, let alone convicted, of any crime at all. Arrested days after a death at the hands of the police and released for budget day - that's pretty sweet media work.

Brown claimed a "very big plot" had been uncovered. Perhaps he was referring to an unusually large allotment these men had been clearing.

One officer told The Times "these men were planning something major. It was not clear when or where they would strike, but they were collecting material for a large explosion." Is possession of large amounts of explosives no longer an offence - or was this bollocks?

Local newspapers across the nation were able to run unusually juicy stories rather than the normal "pig wins prize" fare. For instance the Manchester Evening News said that "RAIDS by anti-terror police across the north west were part of an operation to prevent al-Qaida launching a 'spectacular' act of mass murder, the M.E.N. can reveal." The paper has a handy list of places where you might get blown up any moment now. "Supporters of al-Qaida have previously targeted shopping centres, public venues, public transport and airlines." Well thank goodness the police got there first then.

CNN were splendidly double thinky in their coverage when they breathlessly announced that a plot had been foiled but that "The new plot was not believed to be targeting national infrastructure, such as rail lines, airports or utilities, nor was it clear if the plot was to involved bombs or an assault involving gunmen". Maybe the plot involved sarcasm? Or yogic flying? As yet CNN is still at the 'narrowing down the options' phase I guess, so we'll have to wait and find out exactly what dastardly deeds were afoot.

The Express declared that the raids proved that Britain is a "haven for fanatics". Do these releases prove that it isn't? The Express appears to have no opinion on this at the time of writing. Intriguing.

When the Evening Standard said that "POLICE smashed an alleged al Qaeda bomb plot" perhaps they would have been better moving that alleged so that it read "POLICE allegedly smashed an al Qaeda bomb plot" because right now there appears to be no evidence that the police have smashed anything - apart from a few faces, obviously.

I think the Daily Mail has the quote to end all quotes though;

One student, Nicholas Higgins, who was working on his dissertation, said: 'The tannoy said, "Students, please keep away from the windows, log off and move away from the windows", so at first we thought it was to do with drugs.

'But they came on again and told us what was going on - there were terrorists outside, and to keep away from the windows because they may have got a bomb on them.

'I saw two men lying on the floor, hands behind their back, surrounded by police, police all around with their guns round them.

'They looked like students, they had combats on, outdoor jackets like a Berghaus-type on. I was stunned, I was terrified.'

That's just the perfect Zen quote for the Mail. "They looked like students... I was terrified."

But here's the thing. Nine of the eleven men arrested are to be deported in the interests of "national security". Now, this is blatantly and absolutely the wrong thing to happen for one of two reasons;

Either they are plotting a terrorist spectacular in which case sending them home with a little cake simply allows them to continue their evil work or...

They aren't terrorists and therefore should not be the subject of this kind of action.

Deportation allows the police to distract the press from their incompetence either way. I mean they wouldn't deport innocent men would they? If these men are terrorists they should be locked up, not sent to the terrorist training camp capital of the world surely?

Weekending

End of the week time, what do we have here?;

• Patrick Harvie, the Scottish Green MSP has launched his new website. Flashy.
• At the Anglo-Buddhist Combine Matt gets serious about Jean Lambert.
  
• On the 4th of May there is a national "Turning strangers into citizens" rally in favour of the rights of migrant workers.
• Police delete tourist photos. Wow, I feel so much safer.
• Today's In Business on Radio Four was quite interesting on electric cars - not that the link's come up yet... watch this space.
• Strike a blow for gender equality in pay? The F Word explores Sheffield council's approach.
  
• Environmental prize goes to very deserving African activists.
• The FT says the G8 has admitted it couldn't meet it's PR on hunger. Never.
  
• Spotted this and thought it might be useful: Housmans - the excellent lefty bookshop near Kings Cross hires out a meeting room for up to 12 people for £25 a throw. Bloody good value for such a central location. Phone them: 020 7837 4473
  

And finally, for historical interest, archive TV footage with Malcolm X;

Who's the biggest New Labour arse?

I spent a large part of yesterday staring at a picture of James Purnell. Like catching a glimpse of the Medusa he'd turned me to stone with rage.

The proposal to cut the benefits of unemployed alcoholics... words just fail me.

What a fucknut.

Any opportunity to propose greater human misery in the world and he'll take it. However, he is not alone. There are other Labour figures that are vying for the position of "Largest Labour arse".

Here is my shortlist;

• James Purnell - for service against the poor.
  
• Phil Woolas - for service against migrants.
  
• Derek Draper - for service against bloggers.
  
• Hazel Blears - just for being her.
  

I do try not to personalise politics - but sometimes, well, it's difficult to avoid.

Vote in my poll (right hand column) now. It's essential this question is settled once and for all.

Beep, beep! Off the road Brown

The front page of the Guardian today tells me that Brown's government has swooped into action and has made a move that will end up "slashing the UK's CO2 emissions". All the more impressive is that these proposals are just one "part of a £250m strategy" - now that's cheap!

Oh... It's electric cars. Bugger.

How's this CO2 slash-a-thon going to work then? £100 million is going direct to the car industry for research. I'm not grumbling about that although a bit more detail might be nice, like how are these private companies accountable... but lets leave that to one side for today.

The other £150 million, or part of it anyway, is to become a £5,000 a pop incentive to buy electric or mainly electric cars. Which could be 30,000 new owners if there aren't any other costs apart from writing out cheques - which doesn't seem realistic. In 2006 there were, apparently, 26,208,000 cars on the road and I'm going to assume that's the right ball park for today.

Maths man says: If we have total take up of the scheme, which miraculously has no administrative or infrastructure costs, we will see 0.1% of cars on the road become electric over some undetermined time scale.

Now, considering these cars aren't even low carbon, I think the government's done pretty well to get a Guardian front page claiming the move will end up "slashing the UK's CO2 emissions" don't you? You might even call it greenwash if you were that sort of ungrateful wretch who spits in the face of those promoting electric cars.

It seems particularly good publicity for the scheme when you consider that, according to The Times, "No electric car that is available now, or for at least the next two years, will qualify for government grants of up to £5,000" oh, err, um, that's quite bad isn't it? Doesn't that mean the Guardian's just given a front page over to praising a government eco-initiative that is completely meaningless?

Professor John Whitelegg, who knows about these things, says that "It was always disingenuous to put a greenish tinge on the Budget. But with the climate crisis deepening, anything less than a solid commitment to a very low-carbon future is downright irresponsible." I think that's spot on - pretending to be green is worse than not even bothering.

"But Jimmy boy" you say, "there are also local initiatives, you have to factor those in too." Well, I'm glad you asked actually because what the national government is doing is very close to what the esteemed London Mayor is up to. Last week Boris announced that he wanted to see 100,000 electric cars flood the streets of London. Now, targeted in one city this is very significant indeed.

I'd like to congratulate Johnson on this ambitious target. I'd like to, but I can't. It's clearly balls.

I don't know what the official London Green Party response to this was but he thinks he can do this with 60 million quid. That's £600 per vehicle. Now, this is either going to be the most cost effective transport scheme in world history *or* he intends to use the money to buy magic beans with which to grow the eco-vehicles. I know which one is more likely knowing our Mr Mayor.

The thing is that without significant investment in infrastructure, like a national network of recharge points, electric cars don't look brilliantly attractive to the consumer and, as they are only as green as the source they get the power from unless we have a considerable shift towards renewable power you don't even get that good a carbon saving.

But perhaps there is something deeper that is wrong with the scheme. Is the best way of reducing traffic emissions making less carbon unfriendly vehicles?

Don't get me wrong - I'm for efficiency savings and eco-vehicles (particularly bicycles) but as the ever excellent Mr Monbiot points out "Yet again, our money is being channelled into cars rather than any other form of transport. The government uses the terms low-carbon transport and low-carbon vehicles interchangeably. But they are not the same thing. The most cost-effective measures for reducing fossil fuel use have nothing to do with cars."

We need a fundamental commitment to our railway network that reduces the ludicrous cost and considerably improves its reliability. We need to popularise and facilitate cycling with dedicated cycle routes and improved planning around cycle lanes. I'd swap New Labour's £5,000 a car deal for a £100 cycle subsidy any day of the week.

There are also a whole number of what look like side issues but have a considerable impact on the level of congestion on our roads. Can people afford to live near where they work? Are we promoting flexible working that allows people to avoid the traffic jams of rush hour? Questions that are difficult to answer and impossible to turn into "aren't we eco" press release but have the potential to really transform transportation in this country if we can address them.

I know it's terribly churlish to turn your nose up when the government says it's going to do a nice thing but seeing as it wont work, even in its own terms is massively overblown and amounts to green spin without effecting emissions insignificantly, let alone significantly, I don't have the heart to even mumble a half hearted "thanks".

New Ian Tomlinson Pictures

New pictures at the Guardian show that Ian Tomlinson had prior contact with the police even before the video footage where he was attacked and then pushed from behind by a police officer.

Here we see a policeman giving Tomlinson a friendly tap. Tomlinson was on his way home when these officers refused to allow him through and he was forced to find an alternative way round.


Remember the police line was that Tomlinson died without any contact with the police. That looks less than true.

The police insisted Ian died of natural causes. That's a very confident statement to make in the light of the evidence.

The police said there were no CCTVs in the area. That turned out to be, if you'll forgive the pun, a porky.

What will the police say next do you think?

There are lessons for every party in the McBride scandal

There has been an extraordinary amount of column inches and blog pixels spent on the Derek Draper / Damian McBride scandal and I hadn't intended to weigh in on this one, however, there is an interesting aspect to this affair that hasn't been widely picked up - and that's the crucial lessons that every party can learn from the affair.

Not in terms of blogging et al as such but in terms of the importance of internal democracy and accountability. Here we have two individuals who were not simply rogue elements in the party but were privileged insiders. Both have a history of dirty tricks including against fellow party members and, to a great extent, it is that history to which they owed their position.

Both Draper and McBride were recognised by significant numbers within the party as real problems and those concerns had been raised by party members both privately and publicly including, in McBride's case, at cabinet level. Brown is reported to have promised months ago to sideline McBride at the behest of cabinet colleagues - but that simply did not happen.

It amounts to an unaccountable clique at the heart of the party, and in this case the government. Any criticism of Draper's extremely problematic LabourList, for example, was seen as disloyalty to the party. Even senior cabinet members were unable to curb these rogue elements because they had backing at the highest level. This isn't just a problem that the Labour Party faces, it is a potential problem for every political organisation (and non-political ones too probably).

Party members who have criticisms to make of party initiatives, departments or members are not just inconveniences but an important corrective that can help improve party performance. Without the ability of members to at least have a say over the direction of the party they are a member of, and that includes publicly voicing concerns, that party cannot make any claim to democracy - and certainly will be sabotaging its own ability to retain experienced members.

That does not mean that all criticism is appropriate or, heaven forbid, correct but its existence is not an affront to anyone but control freaks and psychopaths. But alas there are plenty of those in every party. Those people wrongly see every suggestion that things could be done differently as evidence of an enemy within who want to tear down everything their party has achieved.

Derek Draper himself is reported to have said, complaining of his "off message" colleagues, "If you want to be a superstar blogger, get in the papers but lose Labour an election - you can just fuck off". Well quite Derek, quite. But then the off message voices were right weren't they?

In the long term the failure to listen to those critical of Draper and McBride's over-promotion has done untold damage to the Labour Party. A party of sheep who bleat pleasantries at whatever the centre does is a party waiting for death.

Even when internal voices are clearly wrong, it can indicate a need to sharpen the way the message is delivered or put minds at ease over unfounded concerns - but the instinct of internal cliques is all too often to veer towards defensiveness, attacking or even smearing critics demanding they shut up. That response is something all of us in politics need to guard against.

Don't get me wrong - those who only have criticisms without making contributions, who are motivated by personal vendettas or who are consistently negative can just fuck off - but the majority of people who take the trouble to join political parties do so to build rather than simply destroy and criticisms they have to make, both positive and negative, both privately and publicly, are opportunities to improve the organisation's performance which are disregarded at our peril.

We don't have to agree with any and every criticism levelled by fellow party members, but the instinct to suppress does far more damage than any inconveniences that organisational democracy might bring - like raising real and legitimate concerns about those at the heart of the party that do it more harm than good.

Academics to become immigration snoops?

There's an excellent letter in the Guardian today on the latest government wheeze to get lecturers to monitor their students. Signed by 37 academics it reads;

As academics involved in research on the uses and abuses of state power, it is becoming increasingly apparent that members of staff in universities and colleges are being drawn into a role of policing immigration (Universities weigh up new fraud unit to thwart bogus applications, 11 April). For example, academic and administrative staff are being asked to monitor the attendance of students at lectures and classes (whether compulsory or not), and we are being asked to check the ID of students and colleagues, while external examiners and visiting lecturers are also now being asked to provide passport details.

We strongly oppose the imposition of such changes in the way that academic institutions are run. We believe these practices are discriminatory and distort academic freedoms. The implementation of UK immigration policies is not part of our contractual duties and we will play no part in practices which discriminate against students and staff in this way. We support our administrative colleagues in their refusal to engage in such practices. Thus we pledge to refuse to co-operate with university requests for us to provide details on our students or participate in investigations of those students.

As a first, and highly practical, step, we pledge not to supply any personal details - such as passport or driving licence details - in our role as external examiners, and urge all of our colleagues across higher and further education to join this boycott. We will also forward motions to our respective union branches in support of this position. A boycott would undermine immediately the system of external examining at all levels, which operates almost exclusively on the basis of goodwill, and thus strike a significant blow against both the pernicious drift of government policy, and university managements' acquiescence to this.

The "terrorist threat" is the stated reason for this crack down although it seems to me that it would do precious little to prevent attacks but rather simply serve to make the education system an arm of the immigration service. That's not what it's for and, unless we actually want a police state where everyone is snooping on everyone else, I don't think it's a direction we should be taking.

If we got an official to punch every student from Pakistan in this country we might well hit some terrorist sympathisers, but to what purpose? We could guarantee that we would increase the pool of discontent that such people feed upon, but little else.

Likewise, if we clamp down on student visas it is quite possible that we may temporarily prevent a terrorist entering the country and force them to get in in a different way, an inconvenience for sure - at the cost of unjustly denying a whole load of completely innocent people entry, making our education system and our country all the poorer (both culturally and financially).

Part of the problem is the rank dishonesty of a government that uses every news story (in this case one they generated themselves) to further their already existing agenda no matter what relation that story might actually have to their goals. When they get away with it it is because we let them, not because it's a clever strategy because it isn't. It's a blunt tool, but a powerful one.

Almost always the government finds itself using fear as a lever to crack down on someone or other. Today it's students from Pakistan, tomorrow it will be travellers or trade unionists or political protesters. Or maybe that's today as well.

Exclusive leaked email!

The Daily (Maybe) has come into possession of a top secret email sent between high ranking personnel in the security services detailing equipment used in the war on terror. The email exchange is between an on the ground operative, Cmdr J. Bond, and the official quarter master to the security services, who only goes by the initial Q (pictured), and represents a severe breach of security.

From: Q {inspectyourgadget@mi5.gov.uk}
To: Jimmy Bond {ohohseven@gov.uk}
Subject: Sweet new toys (for your eyes only)

Now listen Bond, I've got a few new pieces of equipment for your latest mission. Think you might find them useful.

First we have the "invisible folder". Slip this innocent looking folder to your target. Once they put their report inside it slowly turns invisible, revealing the contents, hopefully at the most inopportune moment. Remember to bring your camera to take a snap of those secret documents!

As soon as I find where I've put it I'll post it to you.

Second we have a highly advanced gas that gives the victim a short bout of amnesia. Fast acting and highly effective the victim wont even realise they've been effected. I've built it into the side of this laptop - all you need to do is press this large button on the side and the gas is released. For God's sake don't press it by mistake otherwise you're likely to squirt yourself and leave the laptop behind.

We're running out of them, so do be careful!

Third we have a lovely bit of trickery pokery. Imagine you've just killed someone and the press actually cover it - I know it's unlikely but the media do cover this sort of thing if they don't feel they have a choice. It's far too late to kill the story so what is to be done? Just press this alert button and we'll launch a massive distraction exercise. We'll round up some foreigners, probably provoke a row with a friendly state and generally ensure the press fills up with stories about how we've saved everyone from certain doom.

The press will make most of the stories up for us, so we don't even have to feed them anything else, newspapers will be full of pages of sensational rubbish about nightclubs being bombed or a dirty bomb - all before anyone has even been charged, let alone convicted :-)

Of course, if that doesn't work we'll just park a tank outside Heathrow and say it's a national emergency. That usually works.

Q

Astonishing stuff!

Alexandra Kollontai

Not long ago I attended a lefty event where one of the speakers, an excellent socialist blogger, did not know who Alexandra Kollontai was. I was quite, quite shocked. However, other than demonstrating exactly how weird I am to be surprised by someone not knowing an obscure revolutionary it probably doesn't say very much.

But it did put me in mind of the contribution of various revolutionary women throughout history and how often this can get over looked. It certainly would be a shame if Kollontai's name was forgotten, or worse her contribution to the left was ignored.

Alexandra Kollontai was born in the late 19th century the daughter of a general and from an old aristocratic family so she certainly had a privileged upbringing. But they say travel broadens the mind and after trips abroad coming into contact with revolutionary literature and active socialists she became a committed communist, determined to overthrow the corrupt and murderous Tsarist regime.

In 1905 there was an extraordinary upheaval in Russia. Kollentai took part in that revolutionary rehearsal and was one of the leading figures in left circles from that moment, although for many years she remained an independent minded figure. During the 1917 revolution she was a central committee member of the Bolshevik Party and, after October, became the Minister for Social Welfare under conditions that were, frankly, not ideal for the task. She went on to found the women's department and would try to deal with some the specific problems that women faced in post-Tsarist Russia.

Increasingly concerned with the direction of the revolution Kollontai helped found the Workers Opposition - a critical faction of the Communist Party. As I understand it (and I'm no expert on the ins and outs of Russian policy at this time) they argued that the economy should be run directly by the workers rather than directed from above by the increasingly powerful bureaucracy. Seems fair enough to me but Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky all disagreed and the faction was forcibly disbanded.

Free love

Alexandra remained a committed socialist but was politically emasculated. During this period she wrote some beautiful fiction like Love of the worker bees set, if I remember rightly, on a collective farm. She continued to advocate free love and was denounced by the regime as a pornographer (which seems genuinely unfair considering the high quality and seriousness of her writing).

Never-the-less she became the Soviet Union's official ambassador to Norway (and later Mexico, the League of Nations then Sweden) where she continually scandalised high society not just through being an outspoken woman in such an important and high profile role, but also through her polyamorous lifestyle and a reputation for bluntness.

Her early contributions to the movement for liberation are to be admired and her attempts to push the left into a more humanistic and less centralised form should not be forgotten. The fact that such independent minded revolutionaries existed at all would be easy to forget in the broader sweep of events and so her contribution, and that of those like her, is doubly important.

However, like many of her generation, she faced a choice: accommodate the bloody hand of Stalinism or be crushed by it - and she choose the former. Of the old guard of revolutionaries from 1917 she is almost alone in living to a grand old age dying a peaceful death in 1952 having enjoyed a substantial diplomatic career in the service of Stalin's Russia.

Kollontai, who in many respects represented the very best of the revolutionary movement in Russia could not withstand the tide as the days of revolution faded into darkness. Unlike many of her contemporaries she avoided the show trials, purges and assassination through silencing her own voice and accepting the effective exile of a diplomatic career. I'd like to think that in some ways she can speak for a better world through us today.