Misogony: just add water

I realise it's a stupid thing to do but yes, I read an article from today's Daily Star. It's safe to say it made me cross-eyed with anger.

The story? Well it's a light-hearted little piece on how a company in Germany is selling rather special bikinis. It seems that "after 3 minutes contact with water it will fall to pieces!" How hilarious because that makes them "the perfect present for dumped boyfriends who want to get their own back after a break-up."

Ho, ho, fucking ho.

However, all is not rosy in the garden of joy that is German joke swimwear manufacturing because "the sexy swim-wear has outraged killjoy women's rights campaigners" who don't think tricking women into becoming naked in a public place is just a bit of fun.

Damn those killjoys. I'd have thought it was a criminal act akin to tearing off a non-meltable bikini, so it should be the police stepping in surely? Isn't this item making women more vulnerable to sexual assault whilst they sell it as some sort of harmless prank - well, no, hateful revenge on your ex-girlfriend.

For just € 9.99 you too can be a vile prick. Rush to your local stockist now.

Saving the Vestas jobs

Way back in April when Vestas announced significant lay offs in the UK (whilst hiring in other parts of the world, including the US) I noted that the company blamed the excessive planning regulations in this country that prevented orders getting filled. With the best will in the world there's little point in making turbines that will never be put into operation.

Vestas' Chief Exec. said; "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."

We know there is an element of truth to this but there are two problems. The first is that Vestas is completing UK orders for 2,700 turbines using its factories in Germany and Denmark, which appears to be more about outsourcing the work than the orders not existing in the first place.

The second problem comes from today's Times which reports that the British Wind Energy Association (of which Vestas is a member) has released a report that directly contradicts the company's line saying that in the next three years the number of operational turbines will have doubled.

Although the Association makes it clear that 2020 targets on renewable energy may not be met it is still clear that turbine production should be progressing at a pace given the current number of orders. In which case Vestas are not making their business decision based on local opposition to new wind farms (even though that opposition does exist and can be very strong).

The government has offered Vestas six million quid in order to conduct new research at its existing site in Newport. This would involve creating green research jobs at the expense of losing existing green manufacturing jobs. In effect the government is supporting Vestas' plan to lay off the Newport workers but retain the site as a research centre. Why is public money is being given to the largest turbine company in the world to research its own industry?

The Green Party has put forward an imaginative plan to use the Sustainable Communities Act to allow the government to support the establishment of a workers co-op which would take over the running of the factories. Caroline Lucas, Green Party leader, said:

"If the government is serious about tackling climate change, helping to protect the future of UK manufacturing, and safeguarding local jobs, it must act now to keep the Vestas facility open for business.

"By submitting a proposal under the Sustainable Communities Act for a workers' co-op, the Council can demand that the government provides the investment and assurances necessary to save this facility - on the basis that it plays a crucial economic and environmental role in the local community.

"Failure to keep the Vestas plant open will represent a spectacular failure by the government to match its rhetoric on green jobs with real policy action. It should be seizing the opportunity to create a renewable energy revolution that can see us through a transition towards a more environmentally and economically stable economy. Allowing the IoW plant to close now would be a massive embarrassment for ministers - and devastating for the IoW's workers."

I have to say I'm impressed by this plan which uses pre-existing legislation and process to do something quite radical that can be enacted almost immediately. It's an enormously practical solution that's even implementable by Labour in the way that rhetoric about nationalisation, for example, couldn't be no matter how programatically correct.

The ongoing occupation by Vestas workers has been crucial in pushing this out of news obscurity right back into the media headlights. Even the government has had to shuffle its feet in embarrassment, which is sadly only a small crumb of pleasure.

Offering practical solutions to save the Vestas plants seems to be the exact opposite of Labour's approach which is to pay Vestas to replace the workforce. I'd add we also need to do what we can to improve the chances of renewable technologies becoming operational which means overcoming the nimbies with a real counter-movement to transform society.

Sports desk reports

A few stories from the Daily (Maybe) sports desk. I accept these links may tend towards the money, strikes and policemen hitting people type of stories rather than throwing balls and that, so sue me!

London Olympics;

Harpy Marx has a good roundup of the cash cow Olympics, here.

Blood and Treasure also reports on the Games' frightening authoritarianism, here.

Africa;

The Times, South Africa, has a report on sports coaches who have simply had enough and formed the Sports Trainers and Coaches Associated Workers Union, here.

Although it's from a Tory I thought this piece on how MPs have tried to support Rwandan grassroots football was very worthwhile, here.

Rugby World Cup;

South African officials have claimed that the process to host the 2015 Rugby World Cup was biased in England's favour, here.

Issues;

The Telegraph writes on sports teams so commercially successful they end up in the dullest league of their own, here.

The Washington Post on athletes and aging, here.

Coming up;

This Saturday I'm attending a cricket match in aid of Iranian workers. Hands off the people of Iran are playing the Labour Representation Committee (team Captains Attila the Stockbroker and John McDonnell MP respectively). Come along, details here.

And finally;

The Third Annual Neander Games is open to teams of stone masons who compete to throw rocks, smash rocks, and carry rocks, here.

Red pencil: Afghanistan

You know, I always fancied being an editor. Just to try my hand I've taken this article from today's Guardian and applied a light editorial touch. In black is the original, as printed, and in white my editions - simply highlight them with your mouse to see my contributions. You'll get the best effect if you check it out space by space rather than all in one go.

Miliband looks beyond the war in Afghanistan into the abyss
Richard Norton-Taylor

With British soldiers and Afghan civilians being killed at the highest rate since the war against our former allies the Taliban started eight years ago, David Miliband, the hapless foreign secretary, will say tomorrow that more effort must be made to promote the political and economic development of Afghanistan in between bombing it back into the stone age.

In a speech at Nato headquarters in a secret volcano in Brussels, Miliband will stress the need for a comprehensive strategy beyond the fighting by mainly US, Afghan and British soldiers in southern Afghanistan as that clearly isn't working.

His intervention comes at a time of concern within the government at the impact on public opinion of the rising number of British deaths because public opinion matters, deaths don't. Ministers and defence chiefs have warned there will be more casualties as British and US troops mount extremely offensive operations in an attempt to provide more death and security for the Afghan presidential elections next month.

The incumbent puppet, Hamid Karzai, is expected to win, though privately both US and British officials are concerned about his dependence on corrupt warlords who pay scant regard to basic human rights but you can't fight a war without the Pentagon can you?.

Miliband is expected to emphasise the need for development aid to be channelled to economic and welfare programmes to help kill ordinary Afghans. Military action must be complemented by measures to improve the way the remaining Afghans are governed, Miliband is expected to say.

The coming months are regarded as crucial if Nato-led forces are to force the Taliban and any other Afghans who are in the way to retreat and lead to a humiliating reconciliation process involving at least some of their leaders to negotiate an inclusive agreement involving Pashtuns and with the blessing of Pakistan or else.

Whitehall officials said tonight that Miliband would go easy on European allies, most of whom have sensibly refused to allow their soldiers to be deployed for combat in a war that can't be won.

I enjoyed that. The whole process has reminded me of that excellent poem, the woman who wasn't there (I think that's what it was called). By the way, no offense to the journalist in question, he's actually one of the better ones.

William Hague and gun boat diplomacy

Three Thousand Versts of Loneliness does not just have one of the coolest blog names you could possibly imagine he/she has also written a very useful post on Conservative foreign policy.

William Hague's latest speech gives a good indication of how the Tories are attempting to style themselves as a mixture of economic pragmatism and social liberalism.

For example, Hague said that the Conservatives would stick to existing commitments in Afghanistan but would "renounce the interventionism which Labour has practised during its time in office." He went on to denounce "the proselytising style favoured by David Miliband and other government figures [which] will be replaced by respectful engagement."

Which, to me at least, reads as distancing himself from everything that's now universally regarded as a foreign policy failure (even when the Tories supported it at the time) whilst not rocking the Afghan boat.

More than a little shade of Obama there, which is a clever move as Labour is utterly contaminated by it's behaviour during the Bush years. Whilst Labour will have to justify their foreign policy disasters for years Hague does a convincing impression of someone who has learned from mistakes he had nothing to do with and certainly did not vote for. Oh no.

However, there's nothing here that goes beyond good spin on a realpolitik forced on any government in an age of economic crisis and the growing power of non-Western states. For example Hague's speech was "predicated on financial constraints which the UK will experience during the next number of years. "

So he's committing not to fight new wars that we can't afford to fight anyway. All credit to him for dressing it up as respect for other cultures, not everyone would have thought of that.

When Hague says he wants to "develop a "sustained dialogue and close understanding with China", which would involve raising human rights but not allow the issue to cloud relations" he's essentially restating the current policy, frowning about human rights for the benefit of the UK press whilst pressing ahead with unhindered trade relations.

And again Hague wants to "Work with Muslim countries even if they do not have democratic and liberal values that are taken for granted in the west." Same policy on Saudi Arabia then. No surprises here, but thanks for the warning.

It seems that this time we're not going to be Bush's attack dog, we'll be Obama's fancy poodle. Plus ca change.

This year's national executive elections

During last year's elections to the national executive of the Green Party (GPEx) I posted a number of hustings debates quizzing the candidates with questions put by the Maybe's readers (at least for those posts who were going to be elected via postal ballot). This year I think I'm going to play it differently and make less of an effort to remain neutral.

For those unaware, elections for GPEx posts take place in two stages. Each of the eleven posts that have more than one candidate by the deadline (two days ago) will be elected by postal ballot, nominations for the other posts are re-opened and then elected at September's conference.

The announcement of who's standing will take place tomorrow apparently so we'll have to wait until then to see who is standing for what and whether there are any positions that do not yet have two candidates. It's an important election as the composition of GPEx, especially particular key posts, will determine our performance at the General Election probably the most important election the Greens have ever fought.

Last year there were just three positions that were contested (and the leader post which is only elected every other year so we're spared that this time). I have a feeling we're going to top that this year, which in general is a good thing. Let's hope the quality of candidates is high shall we!

Weekending: JK dance-a-thon

Well, well, well. Look what the cat dragged in.

• Voting is still taking place for the best blogs about.
  
• Voting is also still taking place in my poll on scientific oaths (go right).

• Blogs I've spotted this week; Gordfolio.
• Also; (a) Green Diplomat?
• Also: Montagnard09
• Also: Chalkface
• Also: Anthony Painter
• Also: Red Republic
• Also: Gay Cornwall
  

• Letters home from a teenage squaddie (Independent).
• Letter from a more experienced soldier (Guardian).
  

• Boris Keep Your Promise on rape crisis centres.
  
• Social Centre Stories.
• Looking at the swine flu figures.
• Check out this tool for making a Carbon Quilt.
  
• Structured Procrastination (thanks Tim).
  
• Lastly, medieval history has never been more fun. (Over 18s only).

Letter of the week comes from The Independent on Tuesday.

Congratulations to this government. Now you've vetted all the teachers, classroom assistants, dinner ladies, lollipop people, caretakers, parent-helpers, coaches, choirmasters, visiting dignitaries and speakers and, for all I know, the little old lady sitting at the bus-stop. Just one question: when are you going to vet Mummy and Daddy ?

Tim Hinchliffe, Beckenham, Kent

Our video of the week was especially requested by Mr Pete Um, enjoy;

Open Primaries: style over content

The Tories have have sent ballot papers to all 69,000 voters of Totnes in an open primary to select their Parliamentary candidate. This idea has been knocking around for a little while but this is, I think, the first time the UK has seen this open method of candidate selection.

Totnes is an interesting choice as it is the constituency where Anthony Steen, disgraced trough scoffer, has been deselected by his beloved Conservatives. It's also the scene of the Greens' secret council by election victory this Thursday (that's right two in one day, nice).

It may have been chosen for the trial as it is Tory heartland where they have understandably lost a lot of trust with the electorate and this might be an attempt to redress that problem.

An impressive 300 people turned up to the candidates' hustings to hear what the three Tory hopefuls had to say for themselves. Frankly I'd have liked to have been there just to see how the whole thing worked. It intrigues me.

Part of me wonders whether this is an attempt to copy New Labour's democratic reform agenda. It was possibly the only genuinely radical thing Labour did and served as a symbol of how Labour differed from the Tories. The London, Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, plus directly elected Mayors were real developments in the democratic make up of the UK's political system. They also masked the fact that Labour's broader agenda offered very little indeed.

If the Tories can brand themselves as the party that's experimenting with more open democratic systems that could be a very useful way of appearing more radical and above all modern than they actually are. Alternatively it could simply be an authentic attempt to address the historic dip in turn out and support for political parties.

Are they a good idea though?

On a gut level I really like the idea of open primaries. It's a system that forces a party to be more focused on those who elect them than internal party maneuvering. In one sense it's also an extension of democracy, particularly in safe seats where the decision on who represents an area in Parliament is essentially taken by the tiny handful of people who decide the nomination for the locally dominant party.

There are some problems with the system though. Firstly the cost is prohibitive. The Totnes process will surely be costing more than twenty grand. Multiply that three or four hundred more constituencies and you're talking about eight million pounds, just for candidate selection, at a time when party finances are low to say the least. Totnes is likely to serve as a symbol but doesn't indicate the start of a new method of candidate selection.

That high cost might actually be an incentive for those who can afford to use this method. After all in the US it's only the Democrats and Republicans that have genuinely mass participation primaries and this reinforces their positions as the two 'real' parties. If you had a situation here where, say, two parties had that kind of approach all the others would appear to be minor players and have their chances dented.

There's also the question of the ability of organisations to promote a clear political agenda, something that could become more difficult if the candidates tend towards those who offend the least number of people. Why should Labour voters have a say in which Tory is the candidate after all?

What it does do is show a certain self-confidence that your ideas can withstand public scrutiny. It does demonstrate a leap of the imagination to regard your party as public property that all citizens should have a say in. That's a leap few hacks would be willing to make, but it could be one the public might welcome.

Leaving aside cost I wonder what effect open primaries might have on organisations like the Green Party, Respect or the Socialist Party. It would certainly be a reality check. I suspect it would pull them towards the centre, sometimes in a positive way but often to their detriment too.

It would also force those parties towards genuinely mass politics and to become far less insular which could only be a wholly good thing. Of course, it would dilute the 'purity' of the ideological creeds which would certainly be an interesting experiment. Never gonna happen of course, but I'm enjoying the speculation.

Norwich North: Tory win

It's no surprise that the Conservatives have won Norwich North from Labour. All the odds were stacked against Labour having offed a popular and rooted left MP at just the time when the government nationally is about as unpopular as it could be.

Results;

		Votes	2009	2005	Change
Conservative	Chloe Smith	13,591	39.54%	33.2%	+ 6.34
Labour	Chris Ostrowski	6,243	18.16%	44.9%	- 26.74
Liberal Democrat	April Pond	4,803	13.97%	16.2%	- 2.23
UKIP	Glenn Tingle	4,068	11.83%	2.4%	+ 9.43
Green	Rupert Read	3,350	9.74%	2.7%	+ 7.04
Put an honest man into Parliament	Craig Murray	953	2.77%
BNP	Robert West	941	2.74%
Independent	Bill Holden	166	0.48%	0.7%	- 0.22
MRLP	Alan Hope	144	0.42%
NOTA	Anne Fryatt	59	0.17%
Libertarian	Thomas Burridge	36	0.10%
Independent	Peter Baggs	23	0.07%

Norwich North has been held by Labour since 1997 and no matter how expected the main result it is still a real loss for Labour and an ill wind for the general election when they can lose seats that had more than a 10% majority particularly when the opposition get twice as many votes as you do.

For the Lib Dems to take third place is perfectly respectable and expected although it does leave their claim that it was between them and the Tories (they got a third of the Tory vote) looking rather like something we were never meant to take seriously. I'll bear that in mind in future.

They were rather disparaging about the Greens' campaign during the election. I wonder how it makes them feel that a campaign they thought was useless gained votes hand over fist and yet their amazing leaflet-a-thon actually put people off.

The Greens achieved just over 9% which, objectively, is a good result for us (I think most parties would be happy with more than tripling their vote) however fifth place is disappointing and despite the massive leap in our vote it is an irritant that we didn't get to that magic 10%. Whilst it should not take away from the massive increase in our vote I suspect it will be seen as a failure by many, both friends and foes.

UKIP may not have come second as their election bar chart was claiming (snort!) and were beaten by parties that they had claimed could not win here, unlike them, so they look like fools. Good. However, they can console themselves that they came just shy of the Lib Dems and they've won a council by election in Cambridgeshire. Bugger.

I'm sure Craig Murray will be disappointed with his result although I've no doubt he'll find someone else to blame for the result. Anyway, I hope he has more success in future endeavors and I'm very pleased that he beat the BNP. I wonder if he'll stand here at the General?

Commiserations to Peter Baggs for his 23 votes. Perhaps his electoral run was premature?

Previous result (2005, taken from wikipedia);

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	Labour	Ian Gibson	21,097	44.9	−2.5
	Conservative	James Tumbridge	15,638	33.2	−1.4
	Liberal Democrat	Robin Whitmore	7,616	16.2	+1.4
	Green	Adrian Holmes	1,252	2.7	+1.0
	UK Independence	John Youles	1,122	2.4	+1.4
	Independent	Bill Holden	308	0.7	N/A

Notes;

There was a turnout of 45% which might sound low but is actually pretty good for a by election which is interesting as I thought there may well be wide spread abstentionism.

Some nice pics from Adrian Windisch

Greens win Brighton Goldsmid by election

Good news, the Green Party has won the council by election in Brighton Goldsmid.

Congratulations to Alex Phillips on a very welcome result.

Green 1456
Tory 1104
Labour 816
Lib Dem 280

UKIP 129

This is a great advance from the last election, and a massive decline in the Labour vote. Things looks very good for the general election from this result and it also makes us the joint second largest group with Labour.

As the Brighton Argus was saying earlier today this result is crucial in terms of the balance of power and for the Greens to have kept the seat out of Tory hands will have a real impact on the future running of the city.

The make up of the council (54 places in total) now looks like this;

Conservative	25
Labour	13
Green	12 + 1
Liberal Democrat	2
Independent	1

Soup by request

I've been asked to post on soup and I almost always do what I'm told. Not that I have any lovely recipes to share or recommendations on which spoon to use in a fancy restaurant. I have two soup anecdotes and I shall share one of them which perhaps reveals a little of myself, although neither of my soup stories are what you might class World Beaters.

When I was a kid my family would go down to Swanage every year and stay with my Dad's Dad. It was reasonably pleasant, if you discount the time the gear box broke and we tried to drive all the way home in fourth gear. We'd have made it too if it wasn't for the damned Dartford Tunnel.

The advantage of Swanage (apart from the fact that board and lodging was presumably free) was that it has lovely beaches (where I almost drowned) and Corfe Castle (which for a child is a very exciting place to visit). I have fond memories of hot summers and splashing about in the sea although we stopped going when I was about eleven I guess.

Anyway, Granddad asked me whether I liked tomato soup and I must have seemed keen as come tea time out it came from the kitchen. Much to my horror there were tomatoes in it! People, this was not Heinz at all, but *home made*.

To this day I remember tasting it and feeling sick with horror because there were *bits in it* and it had an overwhelming taste of, well, garden grown tomatoes. I regret to inform you dear reader that I may not have seemed as grateful as I might have been.

The amount of time, energy and care that had gone into growing and making this meal was wasted on me and certainly every part of me wished they'd opened a tin of proper soup so I had something I could actually eat. You'll be pleased to hear that this ungrateful wretched was slapped silly, although in my defense this was the first time I'd ever encountered home made soup.

Norwich North: What's a good result?

After the results come out it's likely that all the parties will be declaring they've received a good result, well, all of them except Labour. It's always been a little bug bear of mine that politicians do this when hours before they were claiming they were going to win they still feel able to justify how halving their vote was a great victory in the circumstances.

Anyway, as my tiny contribution against this tendency I thought I'd lay out what I think would be a good or bad result for the parties in Norwich North. Feel free to disagree - but only before the final result comes out!

The Conservatives:

Probably the simplest to judge. For the Tories a win is a good result, anything else will be gutting for them. I don't necessarily think it matters how convincing the majority is but second place for Chloe Smith (right) would tarnish Cameron's armour no end.

Out of interest Iain Dale writes about the parties lowering expectations.

Labour:

We all wish Labour's candidate Chris Osterowski a swift recovery from his swine flu but what would a good result for Labour look like? Frankly a victory would leave most Labour supporters over the moon despite the fact that they have held the seat for many years.

However, the real question will be how badly will they lose. Second place won't be a good result for Labour but they could weather it. Third or below would be absolutely humiliating, especially if they are beaten by the Greens.

Gordon Brown doesn't seem to have high hopes though.

Lib Dems:

The Lib Dems can't win here. But then we knew that. Having said that if the Lib Dems are able to beat Labour and gain second place I suspect they'd be very pleased indeed. If they do that by getting more than, say, 20% rather than a total collapse of Labour's vote all the better for them.

The humiliation zone for the Lib Dems will be to get beaten by the Green Party, who achieved just one sixth of their vote at the General Election in this constituency. One election leaflet claimed that the Lib Dems were on track to beat Labour and the very last one claimed the result would be a "thrilling finish" between the Tories and Lib Dems. This is all well and good if the result bears out that that was a possibility, but if they're beaten by Labour it will make the claim look foolish and once again they will hope for the voters to develop amnesia.

All credit to Lib Dem Darrell for making a sensible prediction.

Green Party:

At the last election the Green Party received just 2.7% of the vote in Norwich North. Normally I would say that any increase on this would be a good result and a decline a bad one, but this election is different. Circumstances have changed, the Norwich Green Party has grown in that time and of course this time we have an actual campaign in the constituency so we have to set the bar higher.

I think I'll be disappointed if Rupert Read does not get at least 10% of the vote (almost four times what we received last time) especially when you consider the press coverage. It would be a very good result if we beat the Lib Dems. Second place would be fantastic, although that's less likely than some Greens seem to think.

Craig Murray:

This is the first time that Murray has stood in Norwich North so there's no telling what kind of support he might get. His campaign, Put An Honest Man in Parliament, sets the bar high by focusing on winning the seat so anything under that might feel like a slap in the face to him, but it shouldn't.

The people of Norwich can be a surprising lot when they put their mind to it and it would have been good for Craig to have been on more of the official hustings, especially the BBC, putting anti-war, progressive arguments with Rupert, but he has won a certain amount of name recognition so 5% and his deposit back is not impossible and where I would set the level for a 'good result' for his campaign.

UKIP

As you might expect UKIP's campaign has been bizarre, hyperbolic and bigoted. I'm tempted to say that a good result for the candidate is not getting a smack in the face for his anti-immigrant bullshit but I shan't in case someone thinks I'm advocating violence.

Anyway, UKIP have given us an indication of what they think the result should look like (right) so given it's their propaganda and we should take them at their word and any result where Labour, Lib Dems AND the Greens beat them will expose their utterly miserable political judgement.

Let's see what happens tonight. Good luck my team!

How many aircraft carriers are too many?

Just to highlight the difference between Labour's Keynesian approach and the ethical alternatives (aka The Green New Deal) we have this latest big spending commitment.

No doubt the jobs are more than welcome and the support of industry and the Scottish economy is, it seems to me, very important. What is less welcome is how that money is being spent. That's right the UK's largest ever warships are under construction. Complete waste of an opportunity, and money.
The Princess Royal was giving the nobility's nod of approval today to the creation of these aircraft carriers, whose capability to enforce British foreign policy around the globe will be lethal and unprecedented.

I wonder whether this is a coincidence that the story comes out (the hook they've chosen is 'cutting' the first piece of steel, what?) at precisely the time that chopper-gate has meant the Prime Minister is under pressure to satisfy the army's insatiable desire for more equipment.

Who knows what those pesky Afghans are gonna say with one of these behemoth aircraft carriers charging at them. I suspect it may be an expression of surprise if they're on the Afghan plains.

This spending could have secured manufacturing jobs that promoted social good not human destruction. However, synchronicity only gets you so far because, whilst the news may or may not help dig the PM out of one hole, it does look rather bad when you consider that the world's largest wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, is laying off workers in the UK citing the fact that the government (both national and local) has obstructed the developments of new windfarm site.

The spending priorities of murder over sustainable energy is everything you need to know about this government. Thankfully people are fighting back.

Vestas workers on the Isle of White went into occupation of their factory yesterday fighting to save the planet and their livelihoods. Earlier today there was a London demonstration in their support and solidarity messages have been coming in from far and wide. It is these workers who are on the front line of the war we should be waging, that against the environmental catastrophe we're storing for our own and future generations.

I'm sure there will be many who see the sick priorities that whilst this government has plenty of money for its Asian adventures climate change is coming a very poor last place.

Tories and the Nasty Party: end of an era?

It's been a long slog for David Cameron, since he became leader, in his attempt to shake off the image of the 'Nasty Party'. He's seized every opportunity he can to be pictured in the media being gay friendly, in touch with his feminine side and being photographed with black people without being visibly sick. Maybe, just maybe they've turned the corner - image wise.

After all when you compare the Tory messaging with that of the Labour government, with the exception of the economy, it does tend to be like comparing jelly babies with anthrax. Whilst Labour Ministers pride themselves on their macho credentials locking up old, sick men or giving those on welfare payments stick Cameron hugs every passing hoodie and cycles in front of all the photographers he can find.

However, whilst there is underlying substance to these impressions they are generally a product of political framing, the process by which parties try to paint simple and clear 'narratives' or stories about themselves that are digestible to the 'ordinary' voter.

I'm all for that method as part of a general political strategy - but as an approach it is dangerous because its advocates often end up only being able to think in slogans. So Labour *are* identical tp the Tories or today's Tories *are* the same old Thatcherite bootboys. That's worrying because without depth or nuance political analysis is tribal, weak and quite simply incorrect, leaving you open to making disastrous miscalculations.

As I argued in the Morning Star today it is worth understanding that all Tories are not identical to each other and that to have an understanding of the shades and disputes inside of that party is not to be on the slippery path to putting up signed photos of Norman Tebbit or combing your hair like Hesseltine. After all "You wouldn't want either leprosy or cholera, but it doesn't mean that they are the same thing. "

The coming Cameron government will not be a repeat of the Thatcher years, nor were those a repeat of Heath's disastrously aimless government. The future Tory regime is unlikely to be significantly split on Europe for example (although some voters will be worried about their coalition partners), nor will Cameron be repeating the miners' strike like some sort of historical reenactment enthusiast.

Plenty of those more traditional Tories, particularly in rural areas, tolerate the new slick Cameronites because they think it will get them elected and they don't really commit them to anything. There's a lot of them about and, no doubt, one day the real internal political clashes will take place for the soul of the Conservative Party. However, that's likely to happen at least several years into a Tory government but until then homophobe will co-exist with moderniser just like the lion that lay down with the lamb.

I love when it's different, but it's just not the same

Starbucks, everyone's favourite identikit room where they sell coffee, is testing the water with an interesting new strategy. The problem, as they see it, is that they like the fact they have, with three or four others, the market sewn up but that not everyone likes monopolies. Sad to say some people aren't even that keen on Starbucks.

So they asked themselves what would be a good way to protect their market share, during difficult economic circumstances, but also ensure people don't feel too boxed in by a company who in many towns and cities, Cambridge not the least of them, will have side by side Starbucks franchises all selling identically standard fare at comfortingly identical prices.

Washing Powder company(ies) had it right when they launched identical products under a number of different names. You walk into the supermarket and you have a choice. Do you want bluey white or whitey blue? Lemon fresh, or hint of the forest? It's like some sort of washing powder utopia now isn't it? Choice, choice, choice without the inconvenience of having lots of different companies competing with each other because it goes to the same conglomerate.

Those wiseacres at Starbucks have watched and learned. Now they are going to do some of their own sleight of brand. Starbucks are opening the first of their new stores masquerading under new names for a more "community personality" - for those of us who like our international capitalism a little more homey.

Some curmudgeons have branded the move as 'stealth Starbucks' as the first of these cafes opens, "15th Avenue Coffee and Tea" which boasts of poetry readings and events. This is soon to be followed by a series of others with location specific names by way of an experiment. All Starbucks, but with none of the liberal guilt.

Soon the high street will be able to simulate that independent shop goodness that we all crave without ditching those gorgeous 'too big too fail' monopoly enterprises. It's also a neat trick when you can lay people off and open new stores at the same time. God bless those legal loopholes.

Sports Desk

More reports from the sports desk (that's twice now!);

Baseball...

Breaking news: Obama throws a ball!

Actually it turns out there is a real news story there, courtesy of the ever excellent David Zirin. more...

Swimming...

Well done Rebbecca Adlington for refusing to use the high tech sports gear. Why should the competition be about who has the richest sponsor? more...

Olympics...

Whilst the London Olympics are rife with prostitution fears. Police believe there will be a surge in trafficking and it's likely we will see a big crackdown the nearer the games get. more...

On the other side of the coin, and the world a New Zealand Olympic hopeful has opened a brothel to raise the money to attend. more...

World Cup...

Last week I told you that South Africa stadium workers were on strike. This week I can tell you they won a 12% pay increase! more...

Cricket...

David Mitchell denounces the role of money in cricket (and gets in a dig about climate change too). more...

And finally...

The Onion asks "Why is the NASCAR not done on thousands of bicycles?" more...

Round-up round-up

There's a number of round-ups I'd like to point you to - seems sensible to do it all in one place.

• The Carnival of Socialism is over at Renegade Eye.
• The Britblog roundup is over at Redemption Blues.
  
• Blogger Obsolete has done some weekend links for us.
  
• Then there's Bob from Brockley's weekending round up.
• Lastly there's the Latin American News roundup which is always handy.
  

If you didn't have anything to read, you do now!

Hurray for old bags

I am, of course, referring to the news that plastic bag use has halved in three years. As The Social Business says there has been a subtle shift from being asked at the checkout if we need a bag to "Have you got your bags with you?"

This is obviously very welcome progress. The downside is that halving plastic bag use still amounts to 372 million bags a month which is a massive contribution to the plastic slick.

Just like changing your light bulbs, putting a brick in your cistern or general recycling reusing your bags is one of those very small individual contributions that people can make. Even if we all committed to best practice on these issues we'd still be screwed, just a bit slower is all.

The big action really needs to take place at a higher level. Massive coal fired power plants aren't the product of individual choices made on a day to day level but government policy. Just in time deliveries, discarding wonky veg and extreme product packaging are decisions taken by big business and our power as consumers is very limited when it comes to improving their behaviour, particularly on the behind the scenes stuff.

Some people are understandably disheartened by these facts but conclude, wrongly I think, that individual action doesn't make any difference at all. That in fact it means that people are just trying to make themselves feel 'ethical' whilst ignoring the big problems. I think that attitude's mistaken for two reasons.

Firstly, the cumulative household waste of a town is enormous and a movement to reduce, re-use and recycle just like our grandparents did would have a significant impact on these industrial levels of pollutants. Social action involves individual contributions and it's a mistake to think there is no connection between personal behaviour and, for example, the overuse of landfill.

Just because it requires the actions of millions does not mean it is either impossible nor irrelevant. It does mean however that we start to see ourselves as part of society rather than passive onlookers, whose personal actions have no bearing on our communities.

However, more importantly still, our ability to build a political current or social movement that forces government and business towards more ecologically sustainable practices is massively hampered if we restrict it to propaganda about what they have to do. People taking action in their communities, when shopping, in their homes or at work can feel like small fry sometimes when compared to the size of the task but no serious challenge to the way things work right now can happen without it.

The idea that everything is someone else's responsibility is part of the consumerist philosophy. It entrenches the idea that we are atomised individuals rather than members of society with collective responsibilities - something that's absolutely essential if we're to see a fundamental change in society.

Ask yourself whether big business is more or less likely to ameliorate it's most damaging practices if its offices all have car sharing schemes, cycling clubs and recycle their waste paper. Is the government more or less likely to promote renewable energy sources if they know that millions of voters are committed to environmentally friendly practices in their day to day lives?

Ultimately are we more or less likely to see fundamental social change (sometimes known as a revolution) if large sections of the population already advocate ecologically sustainable living in their day to day lives, even though this conflicts with the ethics of consumer capitalism. In fact that conflict is a motor for reform and deeper upheavals.

I'm not saying these things bring about change in themselves but they certainly do play their part in raising consciousness on the most important political issue facing our generation world wide. Climate change.

I don't think people should have any illusions that buying ecover products is somehow a revolutionary act, but it just seems fanciful to think that social change won't involve millions of people incorporating their beliefs into their day to day lives. Reusing your old bag today might just help bring about a mutiny, and it certainly wont hurt.

New Poll: Vow of Science

We all agree that we want a more sustainable society and that we all have a part to play in making that come about. Well, most of us do anyway.

Do scientists and technologists have a special responsibility to the planet? After all it's their work that has enabled the creation of some of the most environmentally damaging practices in human history.

What would you think of an attempt to campaign for scientists to vow not to do ecological harm by pushing for, specifically, a "pledge to be introduced by which all scientists and technologists will promise to respect the Earth and life upon it."?

I'd like to find out your views so I'm launching a poll (which you can find in this post and in the right hand column) and I'd consider it a favour if you'd take a couple of seconds to let me know what you think.

I'm going to stay out of this conversation because I'd like to know your views without skewing them, but feel free to discuss the idea in the comments as well as voting. Thank you.

Should a pledge be introduced for scientists and technologists to promise to respect the Earth and life upon it.?

Yes - absolutely!Yes - could be a good ideaNo - although I'm sympathicNo - I hate the ideaNot sure

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Afghanistan: Bring them all home

Just a quick snippet on the video released by the Taliban of US soldier Private Bowe Bergdahl.

I'm not sure I have any particular revulsion at the way the Taliban are parading this captured soldier, although I certainly do hope that they treat him properly and release him without injury as all prisoners of war should be treated with respect, fed, watered and definitely not tortured (like in Guantanamo or Abu Graib).

It's more the response from the US armed forces themselves that I find interesting. According to the BBC "Capt Jon Stock, condemned the use of the video."

"The use of the soldier for propaganda purposes we view as against international law"

Well hold on. Who established this practice of parading prisoners for propaganda purposes? If the US regards this sort of thing as against international law why has it consistently allowed footage and stills of captured troops to be released to the media? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander surely?

Admittedly when we pioneered the practice it was to persuade the home population of the rights of our various invasions rather than to try to demoralise an invading force but none the less the US (and its allies) have been more than happy with the 'parading' of captured enemy combatants whether in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I hope this soldier is returned fit and well to his family soon and, in fact, that all Western soldiers are returned to their loved ones through the mechanism of a full and complete military withdrawal from the region.

Weekending: polling day

Another week gone and the net still streams by.

• You voted in the Total Politics blog poll 2009? I think you should.
• People I tagged in the five word meme thing. Stroppy, Jack, Weggis.
• At the time of writing Bob hasn't done his yet, pah!
  

• Recently saw this blog, Tyne Dock Green.
• Not a green blog but a science blog by a green, Raphaël Lévy.
• Another green blog with a more personal slant is Seeds and Stitches.
  
• Lefty blog with an emphasis on Iran. Revolutionary Flowerpot Society.
• Two related blogs; Calais Migrant Solidarity.
• Related to No Borders Brighton.
  

• Interesting new blog to print project - The Blog Paper.
• Thanks to the plinth I now know ColaLife is a project to make Coke one of the good guys.
  
• If you're organising an event in London remember to use Free London Listings.
  
• Great interview with Tony Benn on The Third Estate.
• Are you familiar with wookiepedia?

• Have I mentioned Green Home before? It's a kind of aggregating site for Green blogs.
• Stop UNISON witch hunting its activists.
• You might like to support the Ian Tomlinson family campaign.
  

• Green News 1: Tory leader flew to bio-fuels meeting (from London to Norwich!)
• Green News 2: Bundanoon Australia bans bottled water.
  

Letter of the week comes from The Times;

Sir, At last, the search for a permanent exhibit on the fourth plinth is now over. The safety net erected last week is a perfect symbol for our age.

Paul Harrington, Twickenham, Middx

Spotted this little video at Charlie Marks. Simple idea, nicely done I thought.

Blog bits: interview with Sunny Hundal

I first came across Sunny Hundal at the excellent Pickled Politics and since then he's carved out a strong niche for himself at Liberal Conspiracy, and Comment is Free as well as writing for a whole number of other publications. Sunny's focus on building a left blogging community and providing campaigning tools has made him an incredible online asset to the left.

In the fifth in my short series of interviews with fellow bloggers we discuss American blogs, political influence and the drawbacks of team work.

• What are the highs and lows of blogging for you?

I think a blogging low was when I was getting stalked by Will from DSTFW and getting called all sorts of names. But I guess it makes me develop a thicker skin. Blogging highs - when people come up to me and say they've read my articles. It's always nice to know I have an audience.

• You've very much focused on group blogging. What are the strengths and weaknesses of that approach over going it alone?

I think going it alone means you can be a bit more flexible because it's very personality based. So your own personal stories can be shared too.

The problem with group blogging sometimes is that people feel a bit official and that they can't do small, off-handed posts because they have to maintain a certain standard. That ends up making those blogs less personal than they should be.

The strength is obviously that you have more content and more energy in a group blog.

• How politically influential do you think blogging has become?

Depends how you measure influence. It would be naive to think blogging is or will ever affect a significantly large portion of the population to make an impact at the ballot box. In other words - I doubt we'll ever be at a stage where blogs can tell people to vote a certain way for strategic reasons and affect the election.

Saying that though, blogs are read by people within the Westminster circle - so there's more potential to influence the decision makers and influential people with ideas and narratives. Right now though, I don't think we're at that stage of maturity and consolidation yet. I see even more consolidation amongst blogs as absolutely essential before they start making an impact.

• There seems to be a very clear separation between the A List blogs and even the best of the rest. In your opinion what's key to becoming a top political blogger?

Have a big enough niche that you'll blog constantly about. Have access to something different (people, perspective, technology)... blog often. Don't blog long pieces because people barely read them. Focus on current affairs issues so people feel the need to get involved. Don't use obtuse or confusing language. Get involved in your own comments section.

• If you could imagine a perfect blog - what would it look like?

A mix between the vibrancy of Huffington Post, writing at Talking Points Memo, the community focus of Daily Kos and the design of FireDogLake. Yes, I'm obsessed by American blogs.

Quick fire round:

1. History or economics? Economics.
   
   
2. Fourth Plinth - hot or not? Hot
   
   
3. Guardian online or hard copy? I'm an online child.
   
   
4. Afghanistan - troops out now? Nope - need to stabilise the country.
   
   
5. Action movie or comedy? Comedy.
   
   
6. Coffee or beer? Beer.
   
   
7. Opera or Oprah? Neither.
   
   
8. Benazir Bhutto or Yasser Arafat? That's like a rock or a hard place! Probably Bhutto.
   
   
9. Liberal or Left? Left more than liberal.
   
   
10. There's a free ticket on the next space shuttle - do you go or do you send your enemies? I'm off! I've always been fascinated by space.

If 18 is too young to die don't send them to war

There are lots of reasons to be opposed to the war in Afghanistan but British casualties isn't one of them. If the cause is right, if this war is just then we have to accept that some of our troops will die. We'd all hope those casualties would be kept to the absolute minimum but we should be hardened to the fact that if it's right to go to war then we have to take the tragically rough with the smooth.

If we're prepared to kill, or rather have someone kill for us, then we must also accept that some of 'our people' might be killed too. When British troops fought in Europe during the Second World War every casualty was a tragedy but there was never a time that people thought the cost was too high. Apart from fascist sympathisers obviously.

But whilst some seem to be saying that now British casualties are increasing (which they would do during a massive offensive) where were those voices when it was innocent Afghans feeling the brunt of our war? Take Razia (below) seen here in Bagram airbase where allied forces are kindly giving her medical attention.


After all, she needs it because she received such severe burns when her home was attacked with our rockets containing white phosphorous. I guess that's what you get if you live in what The Sun calls 'The Badlands'.

What's the mission that justifies this carnage? Does anyone even know? Are we making the world safe from terrorists? If so we're failing as the level of terrorism today is far higher now than before the invasion. Mind you Al Quaida's left Afghanistan, they're all in Pakistan and Iraq now - mission accomplished!

Are we ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban scourge? Well, no. They appear more fighting fit than they were a few years ago and, more importantly, they now operate beyond the borders of the country.

Perhaps we're instituting democracy. If so other countries better watch out because once we've democratised Afghanistan flat I guess we'll be coming for them next. Of course, Afghanistan did have a fledgling democracy once, but then that was before thirty years of invasion and war obliterated the country. Never mind, they now have a President who rules several square acres of land in Kabul and surrounds himself with foreign mercenaries to ensure he's not whacked by the grateful citizenry of his country.

Maybe we're fighting the war on drugs. If so it's a shame we invaded in the first place as the Taliban used to be very anti-drugs and wouldn't tolerate it's presence. Nowadays it's their main cash crop and Afghanistan is a major league supplier of opium based dazes to the world. The pre-Obama American forces had been pressing for aerial crop spraying to eradicate the drugs - but seeing as we can't tell the difference between drugs and beans I suspect all this will do is further impoverish some of the poorest people on the planet.

Whatever reason we're there for I think it's fair to say that unless you know what you are doing. and why, having extra helicopters is pointless. They don't know what they're achieving but the government do know that they are killing Afghans in their missions and they have no real way of knowing the difference between a Taliban and a local who thinks a bunch of murderous Europeans shouldn't be wandering round in his backgarden. Which he shouldn't.

Can a war be winnable if we don't actually have any firm objectives? There is no evidence that the life of Afghans is better now than it was before and that truly is saying something. Maybe it's just a question of face now. If we aren't seen to have done something, anything, with the military presence then all those deaths, all that oppression, all those lies will have been for nothing.

Well, maybe they were.


Oh, I forgot. The real reason we're in Afghanistan is to liberate the women. One burned child at a time. I think this video on women and Afghanistan is worth watching if you're wondering whether that's been a success or not;

Blog Bits: interview with Kate Smurthwaite

Kate Smurthwaite is a brilliant stand up comic who writes over at Cruella blog, among other numerous places. She's even been on breakfast TV roasting some sexist creep - wooo!

In the fourth in my short series of interviews with fellow bloggers we discuss Michael Jackson (his first mention on this blog), grammar and how much money Germaine Greer has cost her.

• What are the highs and lows of blogging for you?

The biggest high is always when I blog about someone in the public eye and they notice and respond. I've had that from MPs, authors and also newspaper columnists. If they agree with my points great but even more satisfying when I can tell I've really gotten under their skin. For instance a Sunday Times columnist (who shall remain nameless) who wrote on her own blog that I was "probably too intellectual to brush her own hair".

The only low really, aside from days when I don't feel like blogging, is when someone who is supposed to be (in my head) a good guy/gal suddenly turns to the dark side. Robin Ince (super left-wing comic) agreed to appear in FHM recently and I cried. If "good" people behave like that what hope is there for "bad" people?

• How does blogging fit into your politics, comedy and life generally?

I blog about all of the above. I blog my opinions, I find out about others experiences through my blog, I publicise my comedy and political activism on my blog and I use it to tell stories from my own life. I also understand politics in the context of my own life and tell stories from my own life in my comedy.

My comedy is very political and my political campaigning is full of comedy. Scientists have shown that jokes affect political opinion more than serious statements do. The revolution starts here.

• How long does it take you to write a post?

Longer than I think. I assume it will take ten minutes (like this interview) and then once I've started writing I end up taking hours and being late for whatever else I'm supposed to be doing.

• How does writing a Cruella blog post compare to writing elsewhere?

When I write for my blog I write about whatever I feel like writing. Anywhere else I write they're going to have pre-emptively pigeon-holed me (and maybe themselves) so I'll already be there as an expert on whatever they think I should be an expert on.

I write much more about "mainstream" politics and rationalism on my blog but when I go elsewhere the first consideration is usually "has a vagina, is only entitled to write about sex or issues specifically affecting only women". But hell, I'll take the work, at least I'm getting work. Also I don't really bother double-checking spelling and grammar on my blog, my readers are smart enough to figure it out.

• If you could imagine a perfect blog - what would it look like?

It would look like a newspaper that divided coverage up based on a strict set of rules - so one sentence per person killed, etc. So several pages a week about Iraq and Afghanistan, several pages about male violence against women every week and then a single line "Popular singer Michael Jackson died this week at his home."

And proposed law changes would be discussed based on rational scientific basis of lives saved or dramatically ameliorated. If I had time I would write this myself but I never will, it would take a big team.

Quick fire round:

1. Jo Brand or Shappi Khorsandi? Both - how could you choose?
   
   
2. History or economics? History. Economics is a bunch of theories and most of them don't work.
   
   
3. Fourth Plinth - hot or not? It's hot. I'm still watching.
   
   
4. Guardian online or hard copy? Online, I buy The Independent in paper copy.
   
   
5. Afghanistan - troops out now? Of course - our prescence so far has boosted Taliban numbers to the point where they're now capable of invading parts of Pakistan. Why continue driving people to them?
   
   
6. Action movie or comedy? Comedy. Good one though, there's a lot of rubbish on the market these days.
   
   
7. Coffee or beer? I don't drink coffee.
   
   
8. Opera or Oprah? Opera
   
   
9. Greer or Dworkin? Dworkin. I don't even consider Greer a feminist any more plus she publically said women weren't funny and it's affecting my income. Dworkin was great.
   
   
10. There's a free ticket on the next space shuttle - do you go or do you send your enemies? I'm on it. I think humans should have started colonising space decades ago. Not instead of solving problems here but instead of causing them (see above under Afghanistan).

Total Politics Best UK Blogs Poll 2009

It's that time of year again. These polls are just a bit of fun of course but still, you know, that's no reason not to vote for your favourite green-voting, left-marching, cola-drinking UK blogger is it?

The info below doesn't really make it clear but we're talking specifically about UK based political bloggers. Incidentally, I thought Stuart's approach to this was quite fun.

How to take part:

Email your ten favourite blogs (ranked from 1-10) to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com

It's that time of year again, when Total Politics asks you to vote for your Top 10 favourite blogs. The votes will be compiled and included in the forthcoming book, the Total Politics Guide to Blogging 2009-10, which will be published in September. This year the poll is being promoted/sponsored by LabourList and LibDemVoice as well as this blog.

The rules are simple.

1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and ranks them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include ten blogs. If you include fewer than ten your vote will not count.
4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
5. Only vote once.
6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents or based on UK politics are eligible.
7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name
8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2009. Any votes received after that date will not count.

Are racists getting thicker?

Is it just me or are bigots getting more and more stupid? Take this court report from the Tameside Reporter. It seems that BNP candidate and racist "Roy West has been fined after admitting charges of directing racially aggravated abuse at his German neighbour". Nothing unusual you might say, but let's look at the detail.

"West had put up a number of flags in his garden and was attaching another Union flag to a shed Mr Kugow [Mr West's neighbour] believed was on his property."

When one flag simply will not do, he has to put up so many he literally has no space in his garden left and he has to invade next door. Oh boy, I'm there. The scene is set for me.

"An argument ensued"

I bet it did. During that argument "Mr Kugow was met with a torrent of racial abuse."

West... admitted making the insults, including calling Mr Kugow a ‘Kraut’, telling him to go ‘back to Krautland’ and ‘kill some more Jews’ plus adding ‘remember Dunkirk’.

Krautland?

Obviously we can expect BNP members to incite people to kill Jews but 'remember Dunkirk'? Are we sure that's going to get the guy shaking in his boots?

I'm not sure you should be allowed to own that many flags if you don't know that Dunkirk was a massive defeat of the British forces at the hands of the Germans. It's like a Frenchman telling someone English, "Yeah, well, remember Agincourt!" Aren't nationalists meant to know this stuff?

Presumably West then showed his Dunkirk spirit by fleeing for his life and climbing into a tiny boat. That'll show him.

However, he denied they were racially motivated. “If I was to be charged then it should have been with verbal abuse, but without any racist element to it. How can I be racist to a white man?”

By calling him a Kraut as you deck out your garden in hundred of national flags perhaps? That might indicate a certain racist element to the events I'd have thought.

Mr Kugow, who has lived in the UK for 20 years, said he had been subjected to an “incredible torrent of the most vile abuse I’ve ever heard. He said if I tried to come in his garden he would kill me.”

Mr Kugow’s British born partner, Susan Holt, told the court: “I was gobsmacked. I was shocked because you don’t expect your neighbour to come out with those sorts of comments. Normal people don’t do that and I’ve never experienced it before and never want to again.”

That's right. 'Normal' people don't. BNP activists do because they're sad, pathetic, ignorant pricks. Particularly when they have the full backing of their party.

Both the BNP and West had said they felt the case was one of ‘malicious prosecution’ by police and the crown prosecution service. The party had originally intended to stage a protest before West said he wished the matter to remain private.

Yeah, I mean what's the world coming to when you can't take over your neighbour's garden and threaten to kill him? Why don't the police go and catch some real criminals? If a candidate of the party of law and order can't swagger about like an aggressive beer bellied lout in peace what are we coming to - it'll be like 'Krautland' soon (I couldn't find it on the map mind, it's probably in Russia, bloody Commies).

Where will it end? Remember Gallipolli people, remember Gallipolli.