Australian Tories Depose Leader Over Climate Change

The Australian Tories (confusingly called 'Liberals') have deposed their leader, by a margin of just one vote, in favour of a climate 'sceptic'. Presumably he does believe there is a climate, just not what any scientist might have to say about it.

The Liberals had been bogged down with infighting over the party's policies on emissions trading. The former leader of the party, Turnbull, had been in favour of a free vote on the issue but the new leader, Mr Abbott, was unimpressed and beat Turnbull 42 votes to 41 which effectively killed the government's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in the days running up to Copenhagen.

On Saturday then leader Turnbull issued this statement on the need to tackle climate change. This section is pretty indicative of Turnbull's position, and why it enraged the climate deniers;

I recognise there are many people, particularly in my party, who do not believe that climate change is real and naturally do not see the need to do much about it. I respect their views and that of other climate change sceptics. But the fact is we should approach this issue from a risk management basis. Conservative leaders, centre-right leaders from around the world do that. I am not aware of any major political party in the world that has a do nothing approach to climate change, that has a policy of climate change denial.

Margaret Thatcher herself, back in 1990, nearly 20 years ago, said we should take action to cut greenhouse gas emissions as a matter of “risk management”... because what we are talking about here is not just an issue of today, this is an issue for today, tomorrow and the years to come. It is about protecting our planet, protecting the future of our children and their children.

Currently the Liberals are in disarray and their newly found hard-line stance on climate change is unlikely to do them many favours outside of their core tribal support. As the Sydney Morning Herald reports, one supporter of the old leadership as saying the Liberals have ‘‘f----- ourselves over’’.

I'm not saying the ETS is great. The Ozzie Greens have been pretty clear in their opposition but why you oppose something is as important as the fact that you do. The new leader Abbot, who has written books on how great having a constitutional monarchy is, wrote an article last week on this very subject which you can see here. If we dip into his "Carbon Vanity" piece there are some revealing passages;

The Liberals have always opposed deep cuts to carbon emissions in the absence of a global agreement.

Some, unconvinced that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions pose potentially catastrophic climate risk, have opposed an ETS in principle. Others, though disinclined to believe that climate change is the "great moral issue of our time", have thought that prudence could justify the imposition of a modest carbon price. Still others, impressed by weight of numbers, have supported strong action against climate change in conjunction with other countries...

Claims that Al Gore's film presented hypotheses as certainties plus evidence that the world has actually cooled slightly during the past decade have undermined the arguments for immediate, drastic action. Last week, the Lowy Institute published data showing that the percentage of Australians who regard global warming as a pressing problem that needs to be addressed, even at significant cost, had dropped from 68 to 48 per cent since 2006.

Hmmm. Having someone that is open about his belief that there is no need for urgent action on climate change may be an electoral liability for the Liberals, but the broader picture is that this is a step back for everyone. As a major force in Australian politics the fact that they have chosen to take this course creates real problems.

The irresponsibility of the Liberals makes my blood boil. By taking this decision they are giving international comfort to backwards reactionaries everywhere from the US Senate, the murky corners of our Tory Party and every other science hating runt that hopes to have political influence.

Grammar: affect and effect

My spelling is, to say the least, below par. My grammar is too, probably, although I'm less worried about that, after all language is about communication and if the textbook rules contradict the fluidity of my speech so much the worse for the rules I say.

What you can get away with grammatically you sadly cannot in the field of spelling. If you can't spell (like me) people will not just think worse of you, they'll feel they have the right to tell you too!

I do actually quite like people correcting my spelling as it helps me raise my game - although politeness is always appreciated, naturally.

Of course, spellcheck is a blessing and a danger. A blessing because it picks up my most obvious mistakes (and regular typos, for the life of me I can't type the word 'particular' without getting the L in the wrong place - and I do know where it goes!), but a danger because it has no sense of the appropriate word, only misspellings.

Take effect and affect. Someone (very kindly) has just pointed out that I'd used the wrong version in a sentence but it's a rule that for the life of me I just cannot remember. So I've gone and looked it up;

To affect something is to change or influence it, To effect something is a rather formal way of saying `to make it happen'.

Confusingly, either may produce an 'effect' or result. ('An affect' is a technical term in psychology.)

So if it's a noun you use 'e' unless you're using it in a technical sense. If something affects someone it's an 'a' and if someone effects something - it's an 'e'. Sort of.

Do you know what - I don't think I'm going to remember this, but maybe writing it down will have helped.

Swiss architecture foolishness

Today the Swiss people have decided in a referendum to ban minarets, an architectural feature found on some of the most beautiful buildings in the world, because of their association with Muslims.

A worrying 57.5% people voted against new minarets being built, with opposition particularly concentrated in the French speaking West. What's even more disturbing is the way that the creators of the motion are clearly barking mad.

"The initiators of the measure, the right-wing ”Erkingen Committee,”... claimed minarets were an attempt to spread radical Islam in Switzerland, said the vote would bar any attempt to introduce elements of Sharia law in Switzerland."

What? I mean... what? People actually voted with these morons? There's no movement to introduce Sharia law in Switzerland and what the hell have minarets got to do with anything? Since when did the shape of a building threaten liberal democracy? They can't all be simpletons can they?

The Swiss Green Party is investigating whether they can challenge this result legally. Before the vote they issued the following statement (apologies for the rough and ready translation where I've strived for meaning rather than literal meaning).

NO to the minaret prohibition

Switzerland is a liberal and democratic constitutional state. A country, which retains internal cohesion with its linguistic, cultural and religious variety. The freedom of religion is embodied in the Swiss condition.

The referendum, which seeks to create a general prohibition on the building of minarets, shakes the foundations of our constitution. It is discriminating because it wants to forbid Muslims from using one of their religious symbols. It thereby wants to refuse them a right, which the other religious communities have.

The initiative endangers the constitutional state and the internal cohesion of Switzerland. It polarizes opinion and hinders the factual correction of prejudices and wrongly reduces our enemies to Islam.

The freedom of religion may not be abolished. That would be a dishonor for our country and an abuse of direct democracy. Therefore the Greens call on all voters on 29th November to place a clear, convinced no to a deeply un-Swiss project into the ballot box.

The irrational fear of Islam as a whole is an extremely poor way of preventing Muslims from hating you. Come to that I've taken the Swiss off my Christmas card list myself.

Weekending: 29th November

It's time for the regular weekend hit and miscellaneous.

Blogs and sites;

• Steve Durrant looks an interesting lefty.
• Best blog name? The audacity of Pope.
• Just came across Vote Wise. Probably something council candidates might want to utilise.
  
• I'm rather enjoying Letters from a Tory at the moment. Sorry everyone.
• Fold school! Yes, you too can make furniture out of cardboard.
  

A small selection of articles;

• Cathryn Symons discusses water energy that doesn't bother the fish.
  
• Not really a diary is worried about the expenses of local politicians.
• Hugh Orde says keep politics out of policing.
• Kate Hudson on CND's soviet funding.
• How racist is Barking? From Lancaster Unity.
  

Updates on previous articles;

• After writing my piece on Men's Societies Dave and Zetkin.net have both written pieces in general agreement and Reuben takes issue with me. enjoy.
• I asked Ben, a serving prisoner, what he thought of the recent prison officers' strikes. This is what he said.
  

Diary Dates;

• Tues 1st December Candlelit vigil for Ian Tomlinson
  
• Sat 5th December National Climate March.
• Sat 12th December Green Party London Fed Winter Party free - donations welcome.
  
• Sat 13th March 2010 Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Conference

I've just discovered why the web was invented - and here it is;


Welcome to the internet.

Budgen's Cola: a little bit flat

That's right - the Cola reviews are back! It's been a while, but then again I've been sticking to beer and coffee for the most part, which may be part of the explanation.

Budgens' Cola is another cheap and cheerful brand name that will sort you out when in need of something wet. As far as the taste goes we're not roving into the bizarre 'black carrot' realms of the M&S abomination, nor the fruity blend of Whole Earth. We're talking a risk-free cola that is like drinking a very familiar acquaintance rather than friend or stranger on the bus.

My one reservation about this Cola is that it seemed, well, a little bit flat. Not just the paucity of bubbles, which is not fatal, but the tang lacks bite. I think they've gone for the safe option, the road that offends the least, and in the process they've made a Cola of no real repute.


Don't get me wrong, Budgens provides a cheap way of quenching your thirst without disgusting you. If you think that Coke is a bit edgy - this is probably the Cola for you. If you were choosing a drink to enjoy you might want to look further afield.

John Cleese explains PR

Just came across this fascinating party broadcast on behalf of the SDP / Liberal Alliance from, I believe, 1985. John Cleese explains the need for proportional representation. I think it's rather good.



The quality of recording is not top notch but it's rather well made for it's time.

Why the Tories hate Europe

William Hague, shadow foreign secretary by day, Just William look-a-like by night has been shaking his Yorkshire fist at Europe again. He's just about as irate as his little body can bear.

First of all the UK should not have gone for the top foreign policy job because foreign policy is not really important (which is a curious position for a would-be Foreign Secretary, but that's where a 'don't mention the war' position eventually lands you I suppose).

Secondly he's in a tizz because the vital British job Brown should have gone for was that of the finance brief which has gone to some Johnny foreigner of all people. A Frenchman no less - so you can see why Hague is in a state about that.

Not only has the portfolio on "internal market and financial services" gone to someone who is French they aren't even in favour of the free market - despite having been nominated by frighteningly Blairish President Sarkozy. So here we come to it.

Michel Barnier, the successful applicant, has a desire to "tame the excesses of "Anglo-Saxon" capitalism" according to the Guardian. It gets worse for Hague because "The commission is keen to regulate hedge funds and overhaul supervision and regulation of the markets through new boards aimed at minimising risk and controlling the insurance, investment and banking sectors."

Mr Hague responding to the announcement that this red, who actually wants to regulate the financial sector has been given the reins of power, said "We repeatedly warned the government that going for the High Representative post and not a senior economic brief in the commission could have worrying results. Financial services are a vital British economic interest. The European commission's proposals have the potential to do serious harm to our financial services industry."

Some might think that, in the wake of recent events, it would be the responsible thing to do to regulate the financial sector. No. when it comes to a choice between destroying the economy or creating supervisory boards clearly the boards are a fate worse than death. A bit of a blow for anyone who hoped the conservatives might be a bit better at managing the economy than Brown inc.

Interestingly this commie, red in tooth and claw, is the Vice President of the European People's Party the European grouping that the Tories left recently. I guess Euro-Tories just weren't right-wing enough for them.

We Wee Where We Want

The student who had the poor judgement to get drunk and wee on a war memorial has been sentenced to 250 hours of community service - which is a lot.

If he'd had the good sense to go in a graveyard and pee on the gravestones out of sight like everyone else he'd have had no bother. However, is it just me or is this new?

I don't advocate the application of fresh urine to war memorials under any circumstances, my preference is for people to keep their bits and pieces tucked away in their pants, but in England I think it's fair to say it's common practice for drunk people to piss in public.

It's horrible and I don't like it, but it is pretty common place and you don't have the courts filled with these weak bladdered drunkards.

It feels like he's being made an example of, not least because he's being pilloried in the press, and I'm not sure I like it.

Three stories from today's Guardian

Today's Guardian is full of really good stuff today.

First we have the German banker who's been taking money out of rich people's accounts and transferring it to the poor.

Get in! I wonder if she's one of these German's I spoke about a while ago who have asked the government to tax them more.

Then we have lying cops getting caught out again.

The police chief in charge of the G20 counter operation explicitly told the Commons that there were no undercover teams on the day. Turns out Commander Bob Broadhurst is a complete liar and there were 25 plain clothes police officers mingling with the crowd that day.

Don't worry Bob, you wont get fired. I mean nothing happened to coppers who made up all that stuff about the camp for climate action. Parliament genuinely doesn't care if you lie to it - it really doesn't.

And lastly we have a possible case of sub-editors revenge. John Crace writes an article on how to deal with bullying and stress at work. There's an interesting choice of first words to the piece which bear little relation to the rest of the article, namely; "Change a word and I'll kill you."

Pardon John? Is this a post-modern meta-deconstruction of an article about bullying at work where you fake bullying the sub-editor, in which case it's very subtle... or more simply is it just the sub taking you at your word and leaving in every damn word. I can't decide.

Parallel ethics

I went to my first 'Westminster Skeptics' meeting tonight which was on science activism and new media. Really excellent, speakers and audience with lots of food for thought. One thing in particular, that the Holford Watch blogger (name?) said, as an aside really got me thinking.

He described bloggers as having "novel ethical norms". Now if you were being cruel you might say yes, locked away in the darkness, hunched over a tiny screen it's no wonder many bloggers develop such unbelievably stunted manners. But let's not be cruel, let's be nice.

I think it's an interesting point because there are clear differences in what is seen as ethical and unethical online and where the borders are in meat space.

If you compare the way a newspaper article and a blog piece use links for example it is expected of a blogger to link to their sources, in a similar way to academics if less formal, whilst there's no expectation for journalists to link to source material so the reader can judge for themselves whether the journo is getting things right.

More importantly the only context where I would have a discussion with anonymous people is on a blog (not this one, I don't allow anonymous comments, although people still use pseudonyms, which is fine). I certainly wouldn't put up with the rudeness of some online commentators in a face to face meeting - although it's usually pretty civilised round here as I don't allow that sort of thing to grow.

However, it's still true that the net frees some people up to their inner bore who's lurking beneath the surface and they think nothing of exhibiting behavior that, if they saw it in their day to day life, they would be horrified at.

So why is this? Well, I think it comes down to basic material factors rather than any new exciting 'social media philosophy' or some such.

Linking is easy. Anonymity is possible online, it is not face to face. More than that it is easily done, which is why anonymous hate mail in real life is rare (but sadly does exist) and online is a way of life for some. Even being unpleasant to people is encouraged because it is so much easier to come across people you despise.

I've never been to a Tory meeting in my life even though, theoretically, it affords me the opportunity to start screaming "Remember the Belgrano!" and tipping water over the branch secretary. However, if I was so inclined, I could open a new tab in firefox, bring up a Tory blog and verbally piss in it, all without leaving my chair, risking physical attack, or any awkward questions from the old bill.

The fact that the majority of people who read political blogs do not do these things is a credit to the human race, but the fact it's made easy by the technology increases the likelihood no end. Of course, cunningly, the web has corralled most of these commentators into a few vile, bear-pits of blogs where everyone else knows not to go - but they do escape sometimes.

Anyway, norms. What happens in society when we transgress norms?

There are formal sanctions: We might be put in jail. We might be physically attacked. We might lose our job. We might be thrown out of the pub. Your boy/girlfriend might dump you. Online the equivalents are so much weaker, although we are still subject to the law, even if people forget it sometimes.

There are also informal sanctions: people might tell us we're a wanker. They might stop talking to us. They may raise their eyebrows and stop inviting us over for scrabble. Seeing as online these behaviors are generally directed towards targets that they don't even see as people where's the loss in any of those?

There are certainly parts of online ethics that are to be celebrated. The constant linking and referencing of other people's work for example, the culture of sharing of videos and recommending interesting 'stuff', the ultra-social side where you keep in touch with people you rarely get to see in real life. All made possible through the technology, but the darker side needs to be recognised too.

It's not just that people do things online they'd never do elsewhere, it's the fact that it's generally accepted that makes it a 'norm', related to the ethics of wider society but somehow parallel to it, with it's own rules and nuances.

New Video from Plane Stupid

New video out from Plane Stupid. What do you think?

Warning: it's a little bit graphic.

Polar Bear from Plane Stupid on Vimeo.

It's very well made, although I'm not a great fan of polar bears as the defining icon of climate change. Perhaps a video with African children falling out of the sky is too strong even for this lot, which is fair enough.

Men's Societies? Oh God, no.

There's only one men's group I've ever heard of that I actually approve of. That was set up by a serving British soldier in Italy to discuss masculinity as a way of undercutting the culture of beastings, racism and misogyny. As I recall the army hoofed him out for his trouble.

So when I heard about the rise of Men's Societies at universities I fetched the sick bucket in preparation for an extended projectile pukathon.

There are two versions of what these Societies get up to. The first, from their detractors, says they are obsessed by "Top Gear shows, gadget fairs, beer-drinking marathons and Iron Man competitions".

The very thought makes me want to bulldoze all the universities to wipe out these enclaves and then follow up with squads of flame-thrower teams to ensure the pestilence has been eradicated. That may be an over reaction though.

The second version is from the organisers themselves. Watching Alex Linsley on News 24 just now he said "It's because men are confused about what it is to be a man, we're trying to be the best men we can be... it's a celebration."

Grrr.... it makes my blood boil! In the Guardian he's quoted as saying "There is so much conflicting information for men. There is massive confusion as to what being a man means, and how to be a good man. Should you be the sensitive all-caring, perhaps the 'feminised' man? Or should you be the hard, take no crap from anybody kind of figure?"

Here's a thought, instead of worrying about what you think you 'should' be why don't you just be yourself? If you have need of virtues work hard, be polite, honest and be more forgiving of other people's faults than I am of yours. Love your friends and try to be fair to those you can't find it in yourself to like. It's not rocket science is it?

For the first and last time in my life I agree with the editor of Loaded who said "I don't think men are remotely confused about what it takes to be a man. They just get on and do it. My generation would not sit round and build a website about being confused. It's complete navel-gazing bullshit."

Sorry Alex, but can't you just get on with being yourself and not worry about what you should or should not be? Please, no-one talk to him about his feelings, it'll just encourage him.

Quote of the day

Charlie Brooker says;

Jesus "would have doubtless vomited up his own ribcage in disgust at the mere sight of the hollow, anaesthetising capitalist moonbase that is the Westfield Centre."

No doubt he would have. I'm not a fan of shopping centres myself.

More importantly the piece is citing another example of newspapers treating advertising as if it's news, something I was railing against just the other day.

Weekending: 22nd November

Yo, brothers and sisters. Check these out!

Blogs;

• Green supremo Jon Nott has forged an eclectica.
• Then there's a daisy through concrete.
• My kinda lefty: Mellow Fellow.
  
• Fit Watch - not a weight watchers' site.
• Labour lefty Peter Kenyon
• Very simple site. Battle of Green Britain.
  

Posts and articles;

• Can I just say this post from Harry Hutton is bloody marvellous.
• Liam calls on Irish mercenaries to get out of Bolivia.
• The FT reports of imminent sanctions against Iran.
• This piece on experiments in democracy in Iceland is exciting.
• Exploding immigration myths from Claude.
  
• Bea Campbell on turning red to green in CiF.

Quote of the week (here);

"As a nation, we need to prepare for a highly sexualised, electric Swindon – a Swindon with desires and needs, a vast, androgynous, super-intelligent being, splayed over Wiltshire."

Diary dates;

• Tues 24th November Westminster Skeptics Science Activism in the New Media
• Sat 28th November Hands off the People of Iran AGM
• Sat 28th November Reclaim power: pushing for climate justice at SOAS
  
• Sat 5th December National Climate March.
• Sat 12th December Green Party London Fed Winter Party free - donations welcome.
  
• Sat 13th March 2010 Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Conference
  

Our video of the week is one of Madame Hodge debating fascist MEP Andrew Brons. As she's got the task of facing off the strongest BNP challenge at the election we might as well see what she's made of;

Brighton Tories gone mad!

I'm of an age where I can remember the bile directed at anyone who thought using racist or sexist language was a bad thing. The right-wing press went on an extra-ordinary crusade throughout the eighties to defend it's "I'm not racist but..." position of "it's just a bit of fun" to be a foul, bigoted git.

Anyway, if you were there you'll also remember how left-wing councils were attacked for bizarre language games where no one could refer to black bin bags for fear of being sent to a re-education camp in Germaine Greer's back garden.

The fact that these were stories were by and large a pile of gross distortions or straight up lies will surprise no-one familiar with today's tabloid culture, although it would be a mistake to think the mild version we get today is in any way a relation to the rampaging hate that requests not to use foul, chauvinist language were subjected to back in the day.

The most famous bullshit example was the report of a council who'd changed the words of a nursery rhyme to "Baa, Baa Green Sheep" which is ironic given recent events in Brighton.

It has been alleged that the Tories in Brighton and Hove council have banned employees from using the word green because, as we all know, Green equals Communism and Communism is off message.

The Brighton Argos reports that "Council workers claim they are being told not to use the word green over fears it is increasing support for the Green Party. Officers at Brighton and Hove City Council say they are instead being asked to replace the word with "sustainable" or "environmentally-friendly."

"A council contractor said: "There's no official policy but since the Tory administration came into power there has been increasing talk about not using the word green because of its association with the Green Party.""

Revenge!

Tories say goodbye to "green shoots of recovery", don't think electing Cameron will be OK because "the grass is always greener", don't even consider "turning green with envy" at the right's ascendancy because the "green eyed monster" will have to get tinted contacts if he wants to rear his ugly head anywhere near the south coast.

It's 'Brighton Tories gone mad' - again - but tinkering with words wont save them from the inevitable.

Floods and Fire

My heart goes out to those who've been caught in the floods in recent days. One of the shocking things about events like this is the way it strikes without warning. Whilst there were weather reports of heavy rain few people could have prepared for the deluge that has swept Cumbria destroying bridges, creating evacuees and damaging other parts of the infrastructure.

One heroic policeman, Bill Barker, has died as he tried to protect the public by directing people off a bridge that collapsed and he was swept away in the floods. A canoeist has also died elsewhere in a storm swollen river.

When disasters like this strike the fact that we're a rich country means very little, at least until the crisis has passed and we can begin rebuilding the area. It's a warning for the future that countries like the UK are not invulnerable to catastrophic natural events.

Meanwhile, as we've just received the largest amount of rainfall in one go since records began, on the other side of the world New South Wales is in lock down preparing for its worst fire-day ever, it's premier stated "It has never been this hot, dry or windy in combination ever before".

Sadly, this kind of event is just a taste of what some people in the world have had to experience and our wealth acts as a cushion against these smaller scale disasters. There is an air unreality about disasters unless they actually happen to you. If they help us understand our place within the Earth's eco-system then some good can come out of these tragic events.

The People's Charter

I attended the People's Charter event today at Camden Civic Centre. The Charter is a rather neat idea to collate the ABCs of left policy into six main points, like the original nineteenth century Chartist document, and then get lots of people to support it.

That means it includes loads of good stuff that happens to be part of Green Party policy already (green jobs, renationalising the railways, scrap trident, that sort of thing) and is pretty much the left-wing version of motherhood and apple-pie.

There were a whole host of interesting speakers from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives. Trade union leaders like Matt Wrack of the FBU and Bob Crow of the RMT gave the affair some solidity whilst people like Pregna Patel from Southall Black Sisters and Colin Prescod from the Institute of Race Relations provided a more social, community focus.

There was far too much said to give a full and proper report back but I do remember one speaker from the floor defending the Labour Party's record by saying "The Labour Party has had no influence over government policy for some time." Well, that's inspired me to join then!

Perhaps more accurately a PCS speaker described the three main parties as "in fact, three factions of the same party." Although I'm not sure about that, as factions implies there are real differences.

Another speaker put forward the idea that not only do we have a broken society with a broken economy, we also have a broken democracy and, he said, he'd like to see the Charter adopt some demands around democratising the country - in just the way that the original Chartists had been a movement for working class political representation.

If I have criticisms it's probably that in the effort to be uncontroversial the Charter may well be considered a little bland to some, which may explain a lower than expected turnout. The other difficulty - which is not a criticism but a problem - is that, as a set of general demands that few people have as yet heard of, you can't just wander up to people in the street and say "sign up to the People's Charter?" and even if they did what would it actually mean?

You really need to move from the specific to the general. In other words you're campaigning over the closure of a local nursery and you raise the Charter within that to deepen the politics of the campaign - this way the demands have more substance because they are connected to something directly tangible.

I'd also say the crisis of political representation was the driving force for the original Charter and, in very different circumstances, that's exactly why the left needs to popularise its demands today. It's because common sense ideas that are held by millions - like renationalising the rail - are just not represented in Parliament that the need for the Charter and other initiatives arises. The Charter by its very nature has to skirt round this issue, and that blunts it as a tool.

Anyway, I'll continue to argue for the demands of the Charter, and more, and if this document helps bring to life some of these basic socialist ideas then that's all to the good.

The BNP in words and pictures

I've just watched the BNP TV ad from Barking presented by the chuckle brothers Nick and Dick putting on a display of unity to cover up the fact that Dicky Barnbrook has just taken one for the team and been firmly ejected as Parliamentary candidate by the beastly one.

Not an entirely convincing display of brotherly love, although I did enjoy the moment when Barnbrook said that to win the constituency "we need two simple things". I can't be the only person who thought he was going to follow that up with "and here we are!"

Actually, I wouldn't recommend watching the video if you're of a nervous disposition because the line "We need to flood this constituency with activists to make up for the fact that the Labour Party is flooding us with foreigners" was almost more than even I could take.

Talking of the BNP I saw this photo of the BNP conference in Wigan where they voted to ballot their members on letting non-white join the party. It made me wonder - will they also have a ballot to allow women to join too, or is that a step too far for the master race?

Just a thought, unless they have strictly segregated meetings, I've heard they really admire Sharia law so it could be...

You gotta laugh: immigration controls

Earlier in the week I wrote an article in the Morning Star for the end of immigration controls. Often this is called 'no borders' although I deliberately steered clear of using the jargon.

Tomorrow's edition of the Star carries a letter by Stephen Lee insisting my position is "laughable", "utopian" and that my piece is "no way to make allies". Apparently I'm not realistic.

He might be right... you decide.

Heroes and Villains

The New Statesman has published its guide to who it thinks are the heroes and villains of the environmental movement. One of the beauties of lists like these (apart from the pantomime-like orchestrated booing and cheering) is there's always something to disagree with, and this one is no exception.

As you know I'm not keen on raising people up onto pedestals (see my controversial Brian Haw post for example) so when we single out individuals for praise or condemnation it's not always about them as an individual (although it can be) it's also about what they represent.

The villains list must have been difficult now that George Bush is out of the White House but he's there in spirit under the guise of Donald Trump but the authors have commendably kept the focus of their ire on the actions of big business (with an side serving of poking for the Labour government).

It's when they come to the heroes list I'm a little more confused. Franny Armstrong, yes, of course, good stuff, but the National Grid? Apparently they published a report saying that wind power was not variable in input. Don't get me wrong, that's not a bad thing to do but heroic? Publishing a paper stating something pretty obvious? If you say so... and the less said about James Lovelock the better. Literally.

I don't know - check it out for yourselves. I'm just glad I don't have to compile a similar list because if I singled out Switch Ninja for praise people might just look confused.

Prison officers on strike

It looks like the prison officers are on strike again. Once again it's unofficial action because regulations forbid them taking legal strike action.

Liverpool prison officers walked out against bullying and harassment by superior officers and according to the BBC staff at three other jails have threatened to take solidarity action.

The union's deputy leader complained that the employers had simply refused to discuss workers concerns saying; "The Prison Service's intransigence on this issue is ridiculous.They would not agree to a meeting to discuss this issue. The POA are holding out the olive branch."

"We have said to the Prison Service you can end this dispute now by agreeing to a dedicated meeting to discuss the bullying and harassment by senior management at Liverpool.They are refusing to do that. Some prisons had meetings this morning to discuss this issue. I would expect other prisons to follow suit."

As I said during their last dispute "If we're to have prison officers let them be well looked after, motivated individuals who don't feel like taking their frustrations out on the prisoners. Which I suppose means I support the action. Victory to the POA!"

What's the world coming to?

Paul Waugh reports that a prospective Labour candidate for council mentioned in passing that the Queen was vermin and suddenly everything goes off the rails.

Apparently, if you're even thinking of standing for Havering council you'd better show due deference to her Majesty at all times. Peter White's quote, in it's full glory is as follows;

"What is the point of celebrating the Diamond Jubilee of someone who is born into a position of privilege, she is a parasite and milks this country for everything she can, she has more front than margate asking for extra money from the civil list. Maybe she should sell a couple of her properties.

Maybe if she want Buckingham Palace to maintained from public funds she should open it to the public. Don't get me wrong i have no problem with a public holiday but lets have one that means something, rather than celebrating vermin."

Please remember if you are standing for council - don't compare the Saxcoburgs to rats, parasites, woodlice, headlice, fungi, weasels, those monkey's with blue bottoms or cockroaches. It just isn't nice. Also you might find yourself the subject of a message from HQ like this one;

"Peter White has been summoned to a meeting with key members of the local party and officers from the London Regional Labour Party. He will be required to explain his comments and they will consider his future."

Gulp. Can I just say how I've always admired the Queen Mother's hats. Most unvermin like.

RIP Callan

Edward Woodward has died. Not good, not good at all.

I'll always think of him as Callan, the working class state agent always at odds with his public school educated superiors, but he was also bloody marvelous in the Wicker Man and Common As Muck.

Barking Griffin

So Nick Griffin is to stand in Barking against Margaret Hodge. It's a fair assumption then that they think this is their best bet for a seat.

Two things spring immediately to mind. First, the rather uninspired dullard that is Richard Barnbrook seems to be out in the cold having assumed he was going to have a shot. I hope there are no tensions there boys.

Second, Nick seems to have deserted the North West already. It's almost as if he doesn't give a fuck about the people who just a few months ago elected him to represent them. At least pretend to care Nick.

In theory this is a safe seat for Labour, but then they are always the most dangerous ones because all too often these constituencies have been taken for granted. The previous results were as follows;

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	Labour	Margaret Hodge	13,826	47.8	-13.1
	Conservative	Keith Prince	4,943	17.1	-5.9
	BNP	Richard Barnbrook	4,916	16.9	+10.6
	Liberal Democrat	Toby Wickenden	3,211	11.1	+1.3
	UKIP	Terry Jones	803	2.8	+2.8
	Green	Laurie Cleeland	618	2.1	+2.1
	Independent	Demetrious Panton	530	1.8	+1.8
	Workers' Revolutionary	Mick Saxby	59	0.2	+0.2

The BNP will have to double their vote and more to win this seat by the looks of things, it's a long shot which Ladbrookes is giving 9/2. Of course, that's not factoring in the sterling work that Mick Saxby will have put into the constituency in the meantime building the revolution.

One question that I've been pondering and now seems like a good time to ask it... should the Greens stand here? It's extremely unlikely that we'd make the difference between Hodge and the Uber Grupen Fuhrer's rise to power, but it would be an added discomfort if the BNP won by 1% and we'd collected 2% of the vote.

Weekending

Welcome to the weekending. What did we spot this week?

Blogs;

• Apparently Old Punks never die.
• Son of Schism-Schasm.
  

Posts and articles;

• Carnival of Socialism is up at Harpy Marx.
  
• Aiden Baker looks at alternatives to Amazon.
• Peter Tatchell in the News Statesmen looks at democratic reform.
• Daniel Hoffman-Gill has a great post on Poland and immigration.
  
• The FT reports that Obama has ruled out a Copenhagen treaty.
• Peter Cranie notes the latest poll.
• Jon Rogers looks at what's happening in UNISON.
  
• We're in Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban. Or failing that put them in government.
• Respect had their conference yesterday Ger Francis (via Derek Wall) and Liam react.
  
• The Ecologist looks at how we get community investment in green projects.
• Nick Griffin to contest Barking seat.
  
• Congratulations Alan Gorman, new Green town councillor in Totnes.
  

Diary dates;

• Sat 21st November People's Charter National Conference, in Camden.
• Tues 24th November Westminster Skeptics Science Activism in the New Media
• Sat 28th November Hands off the People of Iran AGM
  
• Sat 5th December National Climate March.

What happens when you cross the irresistible beats of Ska with Christian rockers? Watch this video to find out. Fans of either discipline may require a stiff drink on hand;

Afghan corruption is life and death

I've only just seen this but The Sunday Times had an in depth story by the exceptionally fine journalist Christina Lamb on Afghanistan. It includes revelations about the recent shooting of five British soldiers that made my blood run cold;

The 25-year-old, an unmarried man called Gulbuddin, was part of a 15-strong team that manned a police station in the Nad Ali district, in the heart of Helmand’s poppy-farming lands.

Embedded with the Afghan police were two trainers from the Royal Military Police and a protection force of 14 soldiers from Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, the Grenadier Guards.

The Taliban subsequently claimed Gulbuddin as one of theirs. Senior sources say local intelligence shows the claim is false, however. In addition, witnesses contacted by The Sunday Times say other factors lay behind the massacre.

According to two Afghans who knew him, Gulbuddin had complained of being brutally beaten, sodomised and sexually abused by a senior Afghan officer. A policeman named Ajmal, a friend of the gunman, said Gulbuddin had been constantly tortured. “He was being used for sexual purposes,” said Ajmal.

Another policeman, Kharullah, who was injured in the shooting, said: “Gulbuddin was beaten many times and that’s why he got angry. One day when he was patrolling with British soldiers, he swore he was going to kill him.”

When Gulbuddin opened fire with a machinegun, his target was his alleged abuser. According to the Afghan sources, the five British soldiers were killed simply because they were present and considered to be the man’s protectors.

The allied task to prop up this corrupt regime is not simply one where we are making the best out of a bad situation but one where we are actively protecting rapists, ballot-riggers and reactionaries.

Far from being killed by the Taliban it appears that these British servicemen were in fact killed by a police officer that we'd severely let down in the most horrendous way. I've no doubt that they did not deserve to be killed, just as Gulbuddin did not deserve to be raped and beaten by a superior officer protected by a ring of British bayonets.

Speaking on Question Time last week Sir Ian Blair had said the problem was that the police officers were being recruited "off the streets" (i.e. they come from Afghanistan) when in fact the main problem is that the regime the police serve is itself corrupt to the very top.

Prosperity without growth

Last night I went to the packed book launch of Tim Jackson's Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet (published by Earthscan). Jonathon Porritt, who introduced the author, declared we were there to celebrate the absence of a question mark. We've gone from questioning whether the growth model works to asserting that it doesn't.

I've not read the book yet but it looks extremely interesting. The idea of economic growth is a given in most circles. I don't remember the last time a mainstream politician questioned the fundamental place growth has as an indicator of economic health.

However, growth comes at a real cost and what benefits growth does deliver it delivers unequally. The gap between the richest and poorest nations is greater now than it was thirty years ago not just because the wealthy are advancing more quickly but because the rich are rich on the backs of the of the poorest. As Prashant Vaze points out in his The Economical Environmentalist the flights alone of the wealthiest ten percent of the UK population contribute more carbon to the atmosphere than the entire emissions of the poorest UK citizens.

When we look at Gordon Brown's call for increased consumer spending and freeing up the ability of banks to lend again as a solution to the current financial predicament there seems to be a real disconnect between these short termist attempts to get back to business as usual and the long term problem that we are a debt ridden society where we are live beyond our means. If anything his solutions are about deepening the fundamental problem, not addressing it.

Add to this the fact that unremitting growth is not ecologically sustainable and may lead to catastrophic consequences for millions of people around the world, we have a ticking time bomb whose main victims are the poor. It seems to me that a different kind of economics is required.

The catch all term growth does not differentiate between useful production, anti-social financial gambling or meaningless digging and filling in holes. As Chris Harman pointed out in last month's Socialist Review "much, if not all, of the growth of the British economy over the past decade and a half has been non-growth... a minimum of scientific scrutiny shows that GNP does not measure people's wellbeing."

That's Jackson's argument. Prosperity "transcends material concerns. It resides in the health and happiness of our families. It is present in the strength of our relationships and our trust in the community. It is evidenced by our satisfaction at work and our sense of shared meaning and purpose. It hangs on our potential to participate fully in the life of society.

"Prosperity consists in our ability to flourish as human beings – within the ecological limits of a finite planet. The challenge for our society is to create the conditions under which this is possible. It is the most urgent task of our times."

While we feel bound to measure our success as a society by the amount we consume regardless of whether that consumption leads to a greater quality of life (sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't) or whether we're consuming tomorrow's resources today we'll be trapped in a vicious cycle that's neither ecologically nor economically sustainable. It's time to reassess what it is that we value outside the narrow confines of conventional economics.

Labour retain Glasgow North East

No big surprises at the top with Labour retaining the seat and the SNP still firmly in second place, although the Lib Dems cannot be best pleased with their pitiful result coming in sixth behind the BNP and Solidarity.

It's a pity that the Tory just managed to scrape her deposit back, but we can't win them all. The lack of headlines really reflects the fact that most parties didn't stand here last time so there's not much direct electoral history to compare to.

The Solidarity and SSP vote combined is much the same as last time (a little down) but the bizarrely high 2005 SLP vote has completely collapsed, possibly indicating that people had previously seen the word Labour and voted for Scargill's team accidentally last time.

The BNP vote has seen a boost after their successes elsewhere and blanket media coverage of the main stream media's bugbear of choice - but the boost was not significant enough to see them retain their deposit, let alone threaten the big players.

Full results, lifted direct from wikipedia, God bless it.

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	Labour	Willie Bain	12,231	59.4	N/A
	SNP	David Kerr	4,120	20.0	+2.3
	Conservative	Ruth Davidson	1,075	5.2	N/A
	BNP	Charlie Baillie	1,013	4.9	+1.7
	Solidarity	Tommy Sheridan	794	3.9	N/A
	Liberal Democrat	Eileen Baxendale	474	2.3	N/A
	Scottish Green	David Doherty	332	1.6	N/A
	Jury Team	John Smeaton	258	1.2	N/A
	Scottish Socialist	Kevin McVey	152	0.7	-4.2
	No Label	Mikey Hughes	54	0.3	N/A
	Socialist Labour	Louise McDaid	47	0.2	-14.0
	Independent	Mev Brown	32	0.2	N/A
	The Individuals Labour and Tory (TILT)	Colin Campbell	13	0.1	N/A

Passenger protest rescues refugees from deportation

The NCADC reports that refugee Rose-Jane Wanjohi and her UK-born daughter Natale were saved from deportation after passengers on the plane they were due to be flown out of the country in refused to allow the plane to take off.

Rose-Jane and Natale were taken from detention and "escorted" onto a British Airways flight by four security guards this morning. Meanwhile, supporters were leafleting passengers about to board British Airways Flight BA65 to Nairobi.

The leaflets explained that a fellow-passenger and baby were being taken against their will into extreme danger. As Rose-Jane sat on the plane, several passengers refused to fasten their seat belts. The pilot would not take off until it was resolved, and so Rose-Jane and Natale were taken from the plane.

Speaking from the van taking her back to the detention centre, Rose-Jane told NCADC: "I don't know what to say. I am so happy. I would like to thank my friends, and thank the people on the plane, for saving my life and my daughter. Thank you so much. God bless you."

Rose-Jane and Natale are not out of danger yet but are now back in the relative safety of Yarls Wood.

It's so good to hear happy news sometimes and this points to how even in the most desperate circumstances we can win sometimes. With the dedicated work of NCADC campaigners and the support of "ordinary" members of the public it really is possible to stop the state in its tracks.

Things in the news

No time to post properly but here are three striking articles in the news that made me sit up, which takes a lot as I'm a habitual sloucher.

Fire arms police officer suspended. What for though?

Brighton bin strike called off. Chances of a proper settlement look good, shows what one article in the Morning Star can do.

After the horrific murders in Fort Hood by a US Army Major it is revealed that "Ft. Hood has had 76 soldier suicides since 2003". That's around one a month.

Guest Post: A citizen's income for all

Continuing my short series of pieces on economic issues, Natalie Bennett discusses the 'basic income', a mechanism to ensure that every citizen should be free from poverty as a right.

When you think about it, most European societies, de facto, very nearly have a basic income that supports their most vulnerable members. With very few exceptions, most societies will not deliberately force a person within them onto the streets, or leave them to starve. (That some people fail to navigate the obstacles to get to that point, and end up “on the streets” most people, even right wing politicians, will usually accept is regrettable.)

The expectation is, at the end of the day, that every member of the society is entitled to a basic level of subsistence, of survival, simply by being part of that society. But to get to that point, every society currently forces members relying on such support to jump through a variety of hoops to “prove” they deserve the support – “readying for work” interviews for disability benefit, prying “who owns those shoes in your wardrobe?” questions for sole parent benefit. It’s a variation of the “deserving poor” formula that was developed in Protestant Tudor England to replace traditional Catholic general largesse.

Over recent decades, however, increasing numbers of scholars and politicians have had a revolutionary thought. What if, instead of setting up all those obstacles, employing all of those bureaucrats to ask prying, indelicate questions, you simply accepted a simple right: if you are a member of this society you have a right to a basic decent level of subsistence? A basic, or citizens’, income, which everyone is paid, as a right – no means test, no prying questions, no need for shame at being a “welfare recipient”.

Instantly you’d save a fortune in administration costs, you’d avoid all those barriers of literacy, of ability to fill in forms, of preparedness to accept “welfare” (which robs millions of British pensioners of basic comforts – while the banks have been very happy to accept their welfare payments without a murmur). You’d also be ending at a stroke the poverty traps that leave many unemployed/disabled/unpaid carers worse off if they return to work when and how they can. And you’d have made a huge definitive statement of principle.

How would it work?

So how would you do it? You’d decide on a level of payment – the current level of unemployment benefit is often chosen as a logical starting point for thinking about this – and pay everyone that sum of money in regular payments spread over the year. You’d pay more to pensioners, to cover the fact they can have higher living expenses and no real way of earning significant income, and possibly less to children, the levels rising with their age. And that would be it.

People could choose, if they wished, to live on that sum, and devote themselves to that novel they always wanted to write, or to developing that community vegetable garden at the end of the road, or to caring for a sick relative. Or some – yes – would probably sit on the sofa.

Most people wouldn’t do that. People work because they want more than basic subsistence, and they work because many jobs offer satisfaction, company, the chance to get out of the house.
Some jobs, the least satisfying, most frustrating ones, probably would be harder to fill – but then if banks and utility companies had to stop using soulless mechanical call centres and go back to local offices staffed by local people you could actually talk to as individuals, then we’d all be better off. And if garbage and sewage workers’ pay had to go up, and the salaries of social workers doing the enormously difficult job of child protection, then that would surely be no bad thing. There might be some jobs worth doing for little pay – maybe the users of the community garden could kick in what they could into the pot for a garden manager.

Taxation would kick in at some point probably not far above the basic income, but there would be no poverty trap, no loss of income. If a recipient worked five hours a week, they’d get the pay for that, and they wouldn’t lose the free bus pass that today could make that financially crippling. If they got some work this week, but not next, they wouldn’t find their benefits cut and no money to put food on the table.

How much would it cost?

So what would it cost? Broadly, about half the cost of the basic income would come from existing benefits and reduced administration costs. The rest would have to be found – taxation, mostly from the rich, but you could also expect a society in which more people had some work, and paid some tax. It’s tough to do the maths of this: it tends to leave quantitative economists tearing their hair out because it is so hard to model – there are no examples of which to base assumptions of how a society would react.

But broadly, it is possible to find a coherent model to make it work financially. And beyond that, it is an illustration, perhaps a perfect illustration, of the fact that lots of changes, really important, fundamental changes, can’t really be modelled, planned; they just have to be done, because they are the right thing to do.

Recently I’ve been increasingly coming to the view that we’ve been looking at economics, and economic models, the wrong way around. Traditionally, we start with where things are now, change one thing, then try to make the rest of the sums add up. And those models really haven’t worked out very well recently…

What if we started differently? We could start with what we regard as the basic essentials that a society should provide – basic income and essential public services – say “this is what we need and must have”, then work out how to fund it. Lots of things might have to go – consultants fees, aircraft carriers, new roads, infrastructure for globalization. Some new and faintly shocking things might have to come in – higher taxes on the rich, tougher controls on banks. But then you’d have done what has to be done to deliver a society that truly met the base needs of all its citizens.

Footnote

There’s no space here to fully explore the full beauties of a basic income. There’s further reading suggestions below. And this article has focused on developed societies, but the introduction of a basic income could be even more revolutionary in developing societies. If people already live on $US2, a payment of that sum could totally change their lives. On a small scale this has already been done, in Namibia , and the results have been stunning.

Further reading

• A Citizens' Income, Clive Lord.
• Redesigning Distribution: Basic Income and Stakeholder Grants as Cornerstones for an Egalitarian Capitalism, Ackerman, Alstott and van Parijs.
• Basic Income on the Agenda, Loek Groot
• A Basic Income Grant for South Africa, Guy Standing
• The Right to Exploit: Parasitism, Scarcity, and Basic Income, Gijs Van Donselaar
  
• Or see the Basic Income Network.

Lewisham links

As you may know I'm cutting down the amount of linking I'm doing in the right hand column to make it all a bit more user friendly. Anyway, in order that I don't throw the baby out with the bath water I've decided to set up a Lewisham links post which I can link back to in order to make sure there's a way of supporting the local community.

If you have a site you'd like to promote please let me know in the comments box. Thanks.

Green		Bloggers
Cllr Dean Walton Green Ladywell Lewisham Green Drinks Lewisham Green Party Lewisham Greens' Twitter		853 Bob from Brockley Brockley Central Dizzy Thinks Transpontine
Resources		Community
Lewisham Council Lewisham Local History Society News shopper Wikipedia entry		Brockley Cross Action Group Brockley Jack Theatre Brockley Max Festival Brockley Society Croftton Park Community Link Crofton Park FC Jam Circus Rivoli Ballroom Telegraph Hill Society Voluntary Action Lewisham