Politics at the bookies update

I've just been browsing the odds at William Hill for the individual seats at the general election and noticed a few interesting ones. Sadly not every seat is listed but there's a fair amount there. Click the pics to enlarge.

First, and most important, we see the odds on who will win the next election. Looks like the Tories are the bookies favorite still, no surprise there, but I was disconcerted to see that a Labour victory is at the same odds of Sarah Palin becoming the next US President. She isn't even running is she? Oh my.

We see that whilst George Galloway is well ahead of the Lib Dems he's trailing well behind the neck and neck race between Labour and Tories. If you think he might win there's good money to be made there although personally I suspect he'll either be third or fourth.

Salma Yaqoob is likewise at 12 to 1 with the Lib Dems favorite to win the seat. I think they've underestimated her there, so again a nice bundle to be made if she surprises Mr Hill.
Will Respect hold their currently held seat in Bethnal Green? The bookmakers don't seem to think so, although they haven't written off Respect by any stretch of the imagination. I don't know much about Abjol Miah, the Respect candidate, but I think the fact that William Hill put Labour on for the win is a reasonable reflection of the fact that Tower Hamlets Respect has had a difficult few years losing councillors to all the others parties. However Labour would be foolish to take a victory here for granted.Norwich South has the Greens at 8 to 1 which is bonkers. I suspect the high odds are due to the fact that our last general election result was pretty low coming as it did at the very start of the Norwich Party's extra-ordinary rise. Word to the wise, I'd take a tipple on this one for sure. At those odds you'd be mad not to.

By contrast the more highly publicised campaign for Caroline Lucas sees the Green Party as the favorites to take the seat in May with Labour trailing at third. This looks like a fair summary, although sadly it means there's little money to be made from a Green victory here.
Moving on to Wales the most interesting odds were on Dai Davies the left independent MP who is still on for the win and to keep his seat. Good news as the longer he stays in place the longer it is a reminder to the Labour Party not to try and stitch up its own members.
Another high profile seat is Barking which is the much vaunted BNP target seat. The BNP are all over the place at the moment and their councillors records have been weak enough that the far right will find it very difficult to take the seat. William Hill put them at 4/1 with the odds on Margaret Hodge keeping the seat at a comfortable 1/7.
Last but by no means least we come to Lewisham. Sadly William Hill aren't offering odds here but Ladbrookes are. The Greens are behind Labour at 12/1 but well ahead of the Lib Dems (33/1) and the Tories (100/1) - the same odds as Tony Blair becoming the next Labour leader.

Anyway, it's votes that count not the bookies' betting books, but it's interesting none the less.

Howard Zinn RIP

Late last night I was shocked to hear of the death of Howard Zinn, the inspiring author of A People's History of the United States.

Many writers, bloggers and journalists have written of Zinn in a far more authoritative way than I could, so instead of writing a poor imitation I'll link to a few of them.

Dave Zirin writes a very personal account in The Nation. The Boston Globe.

Bloggers; Luna 17. Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty. Though cowards flinch. Random Blowe. The Third Estate. Michael Greenwall. Adventures in Historical Materialism. Charlie Parker just keeps it simple.

(video spotted at LP)

Pieces of skin trump pieces of paper

The invasion of Iraq was wrong, whether or not it was illegal. The fact that the UN refused to endorse the war with a second, clearer, resolution was an inconvenience to those who were determined to destroy the country and one they retrospectively decided was no barrier as the first resolution that they had previously thought inadequate did in fact give them carte blanche to obliterate hundreds of thousands of lives.

By refusing to pass the second resolution the UN made it clear they did not endorse the war that we all knew was, by this time, inevitable. However, even if they had passed that resolution it would not have made the suffering any the less acute, nor the injustice any less bald.

Tony Blair is giving evidence to the inquiry tomorrow (Friday) and the Stop the War Coalition is organising a welcome party for him starting at 8 am.

Assemble at:

Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre, Broad
Sanctuary, Westminster, London SW1P 3EE

Check out the website for their timetable of events although I'd recommend getting there early as the Metropolitan Police's idea of the right to peaceful protest and ours is not entirely contiguous.

Sadly this inquiry will bring no real reassessment of our foreign policy priorities from the government, opposition or the press, even as the Afghan 'President' cheerfully informs the world that he expects UK forces to stay in the country for another fifteen years.

This particular lie, that bit of spin, this specific distortion of the truth become the day to day fodder of a media that seems oblivious to the wider logic that set us on the course to war not on any given day but over decades. In my opinion we should be challenging the global imbalance of power and wealth in a system built on profit over need.

Pluralism: Lib Dems get it right

I'm fast becoming a fan of the blog of Richard Osley, the editor of one of the best local papers in the country, (the Camden New Journal). It really is a must read for Camden gossip and takes an often scathing journos-eye-view of local politics.

Recently he wrote a piece taking a gentle dig at Camden's Lib Dem Parliamentary candidates (sorry, shadow MPs, snigger) for taking opposing views on a very serious issue, Israel. He points out that;

In the north of Camden, Ed Fordham has been said to be ‘courting’ Jewish voters in Hampstead. He’s actually just back from Israel, a trip which Labour unkindly called a “publicity tour” during last week’s council meeting.

And in the south, Jo Shaw has signed her name to leaflets demanding that Britain no longer helps to arm Israel and denouncing a ‘lacklustre’ response to last year’s air strikes in Gaza.

Well, it may be that Labour and Conservatives politicians find this discrepancy irritating but this pluralistic approach to politics is entirely appropriate. Richard does describe this as "fair enough, all very democratic" but I don't think it would be unfair to say that he dishes this up with a large spoonful of lovely cynicism. That's one of the reasons I'm enjoying his blog.

However, in this case I think he might be wrong.

The public are rightly tired of the tribalism of politics where a bunch of hacks subsume their own personal opinions into the hive mind of today's party policy. Politicians from the same party taking different positions on the same issue is a sign of a healthy internal democracy and we shouldn't be encouraging a culture where it's seen as some sort of problem.

There are lines, of course. There comes a point when someone might be better suited to a different party, but no party that seeks to represent a political movement rather than just a political current has to incorporate difference as a safeguard against doctrinaire tribalism.

I was struck by this when, at a selection meeting for Lewisham Green Party's council candidates, two hopefuls unashamedly announced that they were in favour of nuclear power. A delicious frisson went round the room as everyone there realised we were being asked to select candidates who disagreed with a core part of Green Party policy, and we did.

That could have gone very differently and I was really pleased with the open minded approach we took to these people who were clearly in a minority. It doesn't mean I wouldn't vigorously defend the Green Party's anti-nuclear stance if people tried to change our policy - but the fact that policy is not some sort of thought control also has to be defended, even when people are wrong, I mean disagree with me.

It's to the Lib Dem's credit here that they have two prominent members that have wildly different views on an important issue without coming down on their candidates for daring to have political opinions of their own.

Boris finds crime too time consuming

When Boris Johnson was campaigning for the post of London Mayor he said he was going to take personal charge of crime and policing as it was a top priority. Not halfway through his term and he's stepping down from chairing the Metropolitan Police Authority, his fellow Conservative Kit Malthouse will take over the role.

The Mayor has found the position far too time consuming on top of his other commitments, he has a lucrative newspaper column to write for a start. However, it might be worth reminding 0urselves of what Johnson's manifesto said; "Provide strong leadership: by taking responsibility and chairing the Metropolitan Police Authority and using my influence to tear up red tape and needless form-filling, so we can get more police out on the streets".

Jenny Jones, one of the Green Assembly Members reacted to the news by saying; "The Mayor made a clear commitment to Londoners in his election manifesto to personally take charge of the Police Authority. He has now gone back on his word, realising that being both Mayor and chair of the MPA is just too much for one person to do properly. It was an ill thought out promise, and one that showed his lack of experience.

"The Met are facing difficult times ahead, with budgets being cut in all areas. The chair of the MPA needs to take the time to understand this complex organisation to provide effective leadership. Boris Johnson has not really been involved from the beginning and perhaps feels it is time to stop pretending".

Dee Doocey, the Liberal Democrat policing spokeswoman, also had some sensible comments saying: "This is welcome news as the mayor has never been on top of this incredibly important job. I just hope that, unlike Boris Johnson, Kit Malthouse actually reads and understands the Met's budget and then sets out to immediately reverse the damaging cuts in police numbers which the mayor has for so long denied."

What's worse, making a promise and breaking it or making a stupid promise that you could never keep in the first place? I can't quite make up my mind.

No thanks Mr Mayor

I see that over on Left Foot Forward they are arguing that directly elected Mayors will help to reinvigorate local politics. This position is based on the idea that a powerful local Mayor, directly elected by the people empowers the area.

The authors of the piece rightly worry about the budget cuts to come "no matter which party wins" the next general election and that the remedy against this is to give more power, financial autonomy and control to a new generation of super-Mayors.

I think this is a mistaken view, if well intentioned. It's quite right that over the last forty years the balance of power between local authorities and the national government has fundamentally shifted towards the center making local government a mere arm of central government, disempowering local voters.

I believe that's a problem that we need to reverse but it's a mistake to think we need novel new structures to do this, particularly when the proposal would make local government less representative of the people, not more.

For some time local councils have been shifted towards a far more cabinet style structure where the majority of councillors provide for voting fodder and a handful of members take the core decisions, forming a layer of professional politicians. Deepening this 'winner takes all' approach is the very opposite of what all recent democratic reforms have been about.

Concentrating power into the hands of a single person denies the possibility of a diverse, pluralistic political system that represents (proportionally?) the breadth of views of local people. It makes it harder for those who are in minority to influence events, and ironically it disempowers supporters of the majority parties who end up either having to be for or against 'their' Mayor.

It's one thing to argue that local government should have more autonomy, I'm for that, it's quite another to then pass that autonomy to one big cheese rendering local councillors pretty much like a set of stage armies.

Ironically the authors say that more mayors would help undermine the pull towards politics being populated by professional politicians. In fact it would do the exact opposite. The majority of local councillors *are* ordinary people drawn from the local area, it's the centralisation of local government that has undermined those councillors to the benefit of a smaller, more elitist core.

Coalfinger

Greenpeace have just produced 'Coalfinger'. What do you think?

Science round-up

As I accidentally published weekending two days earlier than I meant to you get an extra helping of links - today's theme is science.

• George Monbiot lists his top ten climate deniers - in playing card form.
• The New York Times has a 'nice' time line of climate change theory.
• Green Left Weekly, the Australian publication, has a good piece on Pacific Islands and climate change.
• Copenhagen was rubbish. The BBC highlights how it may infringe the rights of those
  
• Ben Goldacre takes a look at animal testing.
• Dinner with Portillo (iplayer) hosts a discussion on whether science can be morally neutral.
• The programme features Susan Greenfield who is also on Lay Science, not in a good way.
• John Hawks wonders whether Neanderthals were the original metrosexuals.
• Concerns over the use of chemical castration in pigs.
  
• A novel solution to droughts in the Himalayas. Build glaciers.
  

Protests of different kinds

Phil has an important report of the protests against English Defence League in Stoke today which, sadly, is one of the sharp edges of the fight against racism in Britain today. The upside is that the far right seems hopelessly split in the city.

Another kind of protest is Billy Bragg's ongoing campaign against the bonuses for Royal Bank of Scotland's executives. Bragg links the bail-out of the banks with the government's refusal to hold them accountable for their actions, particularly in the light that our money is now going towards these extreme pay offs they have elected to pay themselves.

Another protest, this one in Brussels, has taken things even further. Striking firefighters have taken their views direct to the government and, to spice up the day and ensure they were heard they decided to bring along their equipment.

That meant lighting fires (and responsibly putting them out again), spraying the cops with thick foam and assaulting government buildings with their hoses. Glad to see they were having fun!

Weekending: first one of 2010

Due to life getting in the way combined with connection problems weekending has fallen by the wayside this month - until now that is! Please try to contain your excitement during the duratiion of this blog post.

Spotted;

• Cruise company uses tragedy to gain cheap publicity. Guardian.
• Whilst Mark Steel looks at the response of the right to Haiti.
  
• Letters from a Tory on assisted suicide.
• I thought this article on Buddhism was thoughtful, if critical.
• Green wins Liberal voice of the year award.
• Liz Stephens at the Third Estate on her attitude to the damage alcohol can do.
• It seems we *are* fighting a holy war in Afghanistan.
• Natalie gives some timely historical advice on child murderers.
  

Blogs;

• Promising new Scottish blog from hip, young things. Bright Green Scotland.
• Dark optimism is something I often feel. Now I can read it too.
• Derek Mellor of Halton Greens has been blogging on the sly.
  
• And Kate Sweeny asks how green is my valley?
• Greening Kirklees is just getting going but looks good. I mst find out where Kirklees is.
  

Watch this important message;

Haiti: nine links

• Clare Durham of the Red Cross explains why they don't want goods.
• Oxfam encourage you to write to the IMF to drop Haiti's debt.
• Socialism or your money back describes it as an unnatural disaster.
• Andy Kershaw in the Independent demands we stop treating people like savages.
• The London Progressive Journal looks at Venezuela's response.
• The whole thing has made Cruella think about God.
• Madame Maiow has darker thoughts.
• Pambazuka presents its own fact file.
• Adam Ramsay looks at the historic legacy of Haiti.
  

Review: Crap at the Environment by Mark Watson

I've just finished reading Crap at the Environment by comedian Mark Watson and I have to say I really liked it. It's a light foray into Mark's personal journey to be a bit less rubbish at harming the environment and, in the process, he creates a small movement of like-minded people who help each other to be less useless.

It's a natural response to think sometimes what can one person out of billions do that really makes a difference. Also living a kind of pure eco-monk lifestyle just seems unrealistic to most well adjusted people. Some people, I think understandably, take these two facts (that they are just one person and that most of us aren't cut out to make huge, fundamental changes to our lives) and say, well I wont do anything then.

Mark's book is a response to that which says "Well, no, actually making little changes for the good is better than doing nothing." Almost like a support group for the partially committed Mark set about reducing his carbon footprint.

In fairness he was coming from quite a high level as he was taking lots of internal flights, avoiding public transport like the plague and not really caring about how much waste he created. The upside to his very large carbon footprint was, of course, there was lots of room for savings. Some of them hurt but in fact most of his savings ended up improving his quality of life, much to his surprise.

It's an interesting read in the way that he wrestles with whether making changes to your own life means anything, or whether we should be fighting for political change. He grapples with the way that people were at different levels and how to satisfy the hard core environmentalists without scaring off those who are just starting to think they might like to do a little something to contribute.

One of the most interesting areas he tackles is his own lack of knowledge and how he found himself a de facto spokesperson for the green movement just by publicly trying to learn more about it. He doesn't resolve any of these issues, but it's to his credit that he recognises the problems without letting them slow him down on his quest to be less rubbish.

Anyone who knows a great deal, or even a medium sized deal, about carbon footprints probably wont learn much detail from this book and there are plenty of well informed places to do that (like The Economical Environmentalist by Prashant Vaze) but what you might find useful is how to approach certain issues from the perspective of a 'normal' person.

Political activists of all kinds can be quite intimidating in many ways and also odd, because they end up speaking in particular ways and assuming all kinds of knowledge that most people don't have. When you combine that with trying to make concrete changes in your community or lifestyle that's a big gulf we might be potentially creating between ourselves and the majority of people.

Mark's attempt is to disarm the guilt people feel by admitting from the word go that none of us are perfect and, in fact, most of us are a bit rubbish. This is a breath of fresh air. He worries it might be letting people off the hook, so that we feel a small change is enough - but that self-doubt is itself something we could learn from. I enjoyed it anyway.

ANC invokes Apartheid era legislation

The South African government has invoked Apartheid era legislation to force journalists to reveal confidential sources or face jail.

The government wants to force a TV station to reveal the identities of two self-confessed criminals it interviewed anonymously who spoke about how criminal gangs are preparing for the World Cup.

ETV issued a statement saying that;

Two eNews journalists have been served with subpoenas in terms of Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

This follows an eNews story by Mpho Lakaje – aired on Friday January 15th – which featured interviews with two self-confessed criminals. One of the criminals stated that he would rob tourists during World Cup 2010. Another said that he would be prepared to shoot his way out of a standoff with police if he felt his life was in danger. This was in response to a question as to what he thought of the police’s new tougher approach to fighting crime.

State prosecutors require Ben Said, eNews Group News Editor and Reporter, Mpho Lakaje to appear in court on 25th January unless they provide the following:

· the identity (names and surnames), addresses and contact details of the persons interviewed.

· full particulars of who brought the firearms visible during the program to the interview, who possessed the firearms during the interview and what happened to the firearms after the interview was completed

· the original and unedited footage of the interview.

The matter is currently with eNews’ attorneys.

On the same day it was reported that a man that had acted as a 'facilitator' between the TV station and the criminals killed himself, although the circumstances around his death do not appear to be public knowledge.

It may appear to be worthwhile to infringe a few journalists rights in order to arrest two dangerous criminals (or try to) but the short term benefits would have long term negative consequences, not least that it would prevent journalists being able to guarantee their sources anonymity - massively hampering the ability of the press to do its job, that's a high price to pay which could lead to far more deaths than could be prevented through invoking this law.

Congratulations Natalie

I don't normally announce candidate selections but I'll make an exception in this case. Camden Green Party have selected Natalie Bennett to stand in the prestigious Holborn and St Pancras seat which, I'm told, got the fourth highest Green vote at the last General Election.

Natalie is the founder of Green Party Women and has been the driving force behind ensuring the Greens nationally have the most progressive abortion rights policy of all the parties, as well as initiating our policies for 40% women on boards, a national rape crisis hotline and our position on gender bias against asylum seekers to name just a few.

She's also a dedicated community campaigner and uses up far too much of her spare time doing thankless tasks as well as being involved in cross party organisations like Keep Our NHS public and the campaign against developers crushing the wishes of her local community.

I asked Natalie whether she is looking forward to the campaign and she said that "I suppose I am, I guess I should be, there will be bits of it I'm looking forward to." She then told me "I wasn't aware I was being quoted, can I have another go at that question?" Sadly there wasn't time.

Natalie's opponents are an interesting bunch. First of all we have sitting MP Frank Dobson. Mr Dobson was health minister during my time in the NHS and didn't particularly cover himself with glory as far as staff were concerned but I suppose the last phase of his ascendancy in politics was when the Labour apparatus used him to stand against Ken Livingstone in the 2000 mayoral elections, in which he was royally trounced and has languished on the backbenches ever since.

We have Tory George Lee who is a very rich man and seems to be bankrolling slick Obama style posters in the area whilst issuing bizarrely awful statements on China killing Camden residents with mental health problems. The Lib Dem candidate, Jo Shaw, who is unlikely to do particularly well has taken to describing herself as the 'shadow MP' much to the derision of the local press.

Anyway, I'm hoping for a strong performance from Natalie who should be able to break that 10% barrier this time round and possibly lay the ground work for Camden becoming a Green target seat in the election after this one.

Sectarian bunfight!

It can be strange to watch the in-fighting between groups that you assumed were all on the same side. As they denounce each other for letting the world go to hell in a handcart it's possible to see that the issues are really, really important to them but it's just not possible to work out why.

Such was my reaction when listening to the news tonight where a Scottish bishop was denouncing Devonshire monks for 'leading people into sin'. This is not within the remit of being a monk and is, therefore, a serious charge.

It seems the monks produce Buckfast, a potent mixture of caffeine and booze. Bishop Bob Gillies (pictured) has had enough of the licentious and criminal behaviour conducted under the influence of Buckfast and has called in the big guns in the form of an old white man in a beard saying “St Benedict, I would have thought, would have been very, very unhappy with what his monks are doing nowadays.”

That's not really him in the picture, obviously. This is him.

On PM the good Bishop went even further than the claim that someone most people know little to nothing about would not have approved by claiming that Christians should not be involved in producing harmful substances at all. That's quite a strong claim and I look forward to his coming denunciations of the cigarette industry, bacon sandwiches and channel five. Let no one put this man in charge of the economy, we'd all be on the dole.

You don't get Buckfast round my way much but apparently it's a popular tipple in Scotland where it is affectionately known as "commotion lotion", “liquid speed” and “wreck the hoose juice”, at least it's known as these things according to The Times, and they move in those circles I'm sure.

Part of the problem is that this is no ordinary wine but a rocket powered 15% brew injected with an impressive dose of caffeine, presumably to ensure you don't fall asleep in a bush on your way home. A bush you are almost guaranteed to have ventured into if you've had a few glasses.

The local police certainly seem to think it's the devil's lubricant, linking it to a large number of crimes - including with the bottle. It may well be that this is the mischief makers booze juice of choice but can we really lay the blame for Scotland's woes at the door of the wrong kind of monk?

Come on guys, Bishops and Monks shouldn't be fighting each other, you should be picking on the Jews, Muslims and Buddhists surely.

What are the Tory priorities?

There's an interesting piece at the New Statesman site on a survey of Conservative prospective Parliamentary candidates. Of the 141 respondents from winnable seats we get an extremely interesting cross section of what the real Tory Party priorities actually are.

It's not surprising that their top priority is reducing the budget deficit, "cutting red tape", and reducing welfare payments - although I seem to remember the Thatcher government was very keen on reducing the welfare bill but due to their financial mismanagement it went up year on year anyway.

I was surprised to see that 'victory in Afghanistan' was waaaaaay down the list. Interesting, as the only thing their leader seems to have to say about the war is that we need to invest more money in for new choppers, etc. but prehaps there is a strong current of revolutionary defeatism among the Tory ranks that has hitherto
gone undetected.

The fact that they aren't that interested in improving the rail network is not earth shattering news though, although God alone knows they must be among the only people in the country who don't desperately want the rail network sorted.

Second from last? Affordable housing. Well, you know, housing isn't very important is it? Particularly the cost of housing. I don't think any voters worry about that at all do they?

Anyway, I was leaving the best til last - or at least the Tory PPCs were. Vote blue get green? Ummm... nope. Less than ten of the respondents (or 5.6% if you prefer) thought that taking action on climate change should be a priority, and it was ranked lowest in importance of all the areas the candidates were asked about.

The thing is, I don't expect them to actually do anything about it. They say they'll reduce the welfare bill and cut red tape and they wont do that either, but at least pay lipservice to climate change for goodness sake. They might want to consider that quite a lot of people regard it as possibly the most pressing issue facing the world today... not the prospective Tory MPs though obviously.

Jim's Vegetarian Treats: Part One: Apples

First purchase your apple.

- choose your variety to taste. Each to their own.
- if you don't hold the planet and its inhabitants in complete contempt please try to buy local.

Alternatively.

- you may prefer to steal your apple. This is one of the only acceptable reasons to go into a Tesco Express.
- unlike when you use your hard moolah please do not steal from local, independent shops.
- for the true eco-anarchist you should steal your apple direct from a local orchard, straight from the tree, colloquially known as 'scrumping'.

Rub your apple.

- I use a left-handed, brisk polishing motion to my breast pocket.
- You may use either hand.
- You might prefer to apply your apple to the thigh of your jeans, the tummy of your jumper or you may prefer the more traditional upper arm of your jacket.
- It is not socially acceptable to use your back jeans pocket, a scarf, towel or, indeed, your socks.

Lastly, eat your apple.

- one bite at a time.
- chew a responsibly for each and every mouthful.

How much of the apple do I eat?

- some people discard the core. This is the kind of profligate eco-criminality that has sent the world spinning towards its untimely demise. I consume the core, with pips, then chew the stalk stuck at a jaunty angle from the left corner of my mouth.
- alternatively you can compost the remains.

How Fragile is Ireland?

Specifically the bit in the north of the island. Watching Question Time last night I realised I was becoming increasingly frustrated with the way the 'peace process' in Ireland is being used as a way of avoiding political questions and ends up being simply code for maintaining the status quo.

All the politicians lined up to say how the question of a corrupt MP who broke her marital vows must not be allowed to 'derail the peace process' as if attempting to resolve any contentious political issue might suddenly see the region erupt into petrol bombs and internment without trial.

It's as if we are being asked to simply accept political wrong doing for the sake of the children. The problem is that if any public row might see a return of the darkest days of the troubles (and there's no evidence at all that this is likely) it means that politics in the north of Ireland is over. If politicians can't have a good old barny in the six counties then the British government ends up making all the decisions by default.

That's a very comfortable position for Peter Hain to advocate. Slanging matches between the parties in England is all very well because we are a mature and stable democracy populated by exemplary, grown up statesmen like Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, but these childlike Irish can't be allowed to disagree because who knows where it will lead.

I have a few simple questions about the Iris Robinson affair. If we can't deal with financial misconduct in a politically confident way does that make the institutions in the north of Ireland more or less robust? In the long run are people going to have more or less confidence in those institutions if every scandal gets fudged and every difficult question avoided?

If every political question, no matter how unrelated, comes down to the peace process how are we ever to return to 'normal politics'? Why are heated rows in one part of the UK seen as normal but they are forbidden in another part of the UK?

Is every disagreement or crisis really a herald to a new dawn of violence in Ireland's north when they are the political norms in both the south of the country and in the rest of the UK?

Where is the evidence that we are on the brink of a renewal of sectarian violence in earnest? Or is it simply the cack handed structural set-up of the institutions that mean that even the bread and butter of politics (a leader stepping down) supposedly threatens the stability of the entire government?

Helping Haiti

I'm sure everyone reading this has, like myself, been horrified by the scale of the carnage in Haiti.

Estimates are that around one third of the population is homeless and thousands upon thousands are dead. For a poor nation to suffer such an extraordinary catastrophe means long term misery and poverty as well as short term destruction and death.

Looking around to see how best to make a practical contribution to the disaster relief I have been recommended Partners in Health. Someone on the ground said of them;

"PIH is a well-established, very dependable organization with long-term presence in Haiti... It provides urgent medical care throughout the country. PIH is not headquartered in Port-au-Prince, which means its staff and infrastructure are still functional."

PIH is also recommended by the New York Times in a very interesting piece on how to deliver aid effectively.

I was also recommended a more anarchist leaning organisation working on the ground in Haiti although I have no way of judging how effective they are so I'll leave you to judge.

I'll also point to the Disaster Emergency Committee which is an umbrella organisation for thirteen leading NGOs and is designed to help deliver a speedy and coordinated response to international disasters.

Full details on how to donate can be found at all of these websites.

My second thought is about what we should be asking of our government(s) and whether they are going to deliver that help. A number of nations including the UK have sent specialist teams to deal with the immediate problems and Mr Obama made an impassioned speech which I've embedded below.



I'm sure that Douglas Alexander, the International Development Secretary, will be as shocked as all of us are on a human level. Politically it may well be worth ensuring that we maintain a commitment to Haiti that does not become an excuse for aspects of our foreign policy that may not be in the interests of this poor nation.

To this end I've written a short email to DFID at enquiry@dfid.gov.uk expressing this simple appeal. If there is anything else meaningful that we can do at this time please feel free to leave your suggestion as a comment.

Corrupt police: a bit more background

In the last few days you may have noticed that a high ranking police officer is in court over the misuse of his position. There have been a number of reports about Commander Ali Dizaei who allegedly arrested a man because he had a personal dispute with him about a website and falsely alleged he'd been assaulted.

Now, we know this sort of thing happens. Some police officers have been known to take advantage of the powers the state lends them to assault, stitch up and otherwise do over members of the public. It is also the case that police officers do occasionally find themselves in court over this kind of behaviour.

However, it seems to me that the reports of this latest episode do seem to be deliberately skirting round a particularly salient fact.

Now, I do not want to comment on whether Commander Dizaei has been guilty of wrong doing or not in this case. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. I do happen to have a memory though and using this possibly unique ability I recognised Dizaei's name from a previous police corruption case.

However, that case was quite different. As a leading member of the National Black Police Association and outspoken critic of institutional racism in the force Dizaei found himself the subject of an extraordinary surveillance operation, Operation Helios.

Helios cost the taxpayer millions upon millions, used up thousands of hours of time of the fifty police officers involved and ended up in one of the most ludicrous court cases you could possibly imagine. A barrage of charges were made against Dizaei ranging from fiddling his petrol expenses, using prostitutes to spying for Iran. Honestly! They charged him with some of the most serious crimes on the books alongside some of the most petty.

The operation was a travesty and a clear example of a police command structure that wanted someone out who it did not regard as "one 0f us". They abused their position to cook up a shopping list of charges as an attempt to destroy one of the leading anti-racist police officers. All the charges were either thrown out or dropped. Not a single one was upheld.

Surprisingly Dizeai did not attempt to screw the Met for every penny they had and focused on being re-instated as a police officer, something he eventually achieved. To my knowledge no police officer was ever disciplined for their part in Operation Helios and whilst Dizeai may have been re-instated he was a marked man.

Back to the present day. Once again Dizeai is up on charges of corruption, once again the press simply prints the state's case against him and seems to have developed amnesia over the extremely relevant fact that Dizeai was previously the victim of false accusations cooked up by the state.

Now, I am not saying that because he had false accusations levelled against him before that he is a saint that could not possibly have done the things that he is accused of today. He should not be immune from prosecution simply because of the way he was treated before. That is a given.

What I am saying is that if the press want to provide balanced coverage the fact that the Metropolitan Police tried every dirty trick in the book to get his head only a few years ago deserves at least a footnote when he is once again charged with corruption.

People might like to read Dizaei's account of Operation Helios in his excellent book 'Not One Of Us'.

Be nice to someone day

I suspect the next few months may see me writing quite a few more critical pieces on other parties, their policies, their presentation and, hopefully to a lesser extent, their personnel. As the tiniest attempt to redress the balance I thought I'd set myself the challenge of saying something nice about each of the three main parties.

Labour;

In some ways I still see myself as a natural Labour supporter. It's been quite some time since I voted for them but it was my default position for decades. There are still some members in the party who represent the kind of ideals I admire.

Not just the obvious hard-left examples of Corbyn and co but also some of the less radical politicians who have social democratic politics buried deep in their guts. They tend to be older and lodged into specific positions that make staying in the party worthwhile but they do still exist and I admire their tenacity at hanging on in there - even if I don't envy them.

Lib Dems;

The Liberal Democrats have a less centralised culture than the other parties which is still resistant to Clegg's attempts to make decisions on everyone else's behalf. I think that's far more conducive to democracy than the 'love me or sack me' leadership model of the other parties.

It's also true that both the Lib Dem MPs I've lived under (Bob Russell and David Howarth) have been highly regarded as constituency MPs and have been very strong on issues like civil rights and immigration.

The Conservatives;

Now, well, um, I know this, it's on the tip of my tongue. The thing is... no, that's not it. What about, hold on... conviction politics?

Not Cameron obviously. Some of the others. Mind you, Hitler was a conviction politician so it's probably not that great. Not that they're fascists, I'm not saying that. Doing business with fascists, selling them guns, torture equipment and that does not make you a Nazi. Not at all.

Also blue's a really nice colour, don't you think?

Clegg tells his party to forget their spending commitments

Nick Clegg has been letting his party know that all that talk about free childcare and the right to personal care, well, they just can't have it. Even though it's party policy. You have to be 'grown up' about these things you see.

In tomorrow's Morning Star I argue that;

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has announced that the politics of plenty are over. I assume by this he means plenty of war, plenty of cuts and plenty of sell-offs because he could not possibly be saying that up to now we have never had it so good. Or could he?...

After describing voters as grown-ups, Clegg then announced that he would introduce caps on public-sector pay, scrap the government baby bonds scheme, ditch the commitment to free childcare and their "citizen's pension" and that he would no longer advocate free personal care for the old and disabled. Added to this the Lib Dems would keep tuition fees, at least until the good times roll again.

Clegg described this bonfire of the policies by saying: "We have stripped away everything that is not essential because the country cannot afford it."

There was me thinking that policies like free child and personal care existed because parents and the disabled couldn't afford them. Maybe they aren't part of "the country."...

It's an interesting way to try to give people confidence in your manifesto by tearing half of it up shouting: "This is all rubbish! We were never going to do any of it."

Whilst I tend to agree with Mr Clegg on the Gina Ford parenting thing, more generally he has been a disaster as a leader positioning the Lib Dems in a right of centre space that does not exist as it has a prior occupant, the Tory Party. I fully expect the third party to be electing a new leader after the General Election.

Frankly Clegg's idea that the Labour and Tory parties are pretending as if the economic crisis is not happening is extraordinary. It's hardly credible at a time when they are competing with each other to say how savage they are going to be wth public services. Never-the-less he says he's going to be tougher - Christ that's worrying.

The announcement that Clegg was ditching a raft of Lib Dem policies was met with a mixed reception from Lib Dems. Some bloggers were supportive but others less so. Jennie Rigg, for example, said;

Our Glorious Leader has chosen today to announce that we won't be able to afford all the policy commitments we are committed to, despite the fact that three months ago conference told him we would not be happy about it. Predictably it's the equality-based commitments that are highest up the cancellation list.

Darrell, a Leeds council candidate for the Lib Dems, says that;

Lets be quite clear that there is nothing fair about withdrawing policies meant to increase state support for vulnerable (and least self-sufficient) groups within society while maintaining things such as a ‘multi-billion pound committment’ to the failed war in Afghanistan.

It seems to me that the Lib Dems have squandered the last few years that could have seen them go from strength to strength as an alternative to the two floundering parties of government. Instead their electoral support is flagging, and their politics directionless. What a shame

P.S. talking of being adult about things, it's nice to see someone at The Telegraph thinks the Greens are all grown up now. I assume that's a compliment.

Catching up: five snippets

Posting has been slow for a number of reasons, so in an attempt to catch up here are five things that I reckon;

• Iceland: why should the government pay back the money lost in the financial crash and thereby immiserate it's population?
  
  The previous government mismanaged the economy and that's why it was chucked out and replaced with a left green coalition who oppose the policies of the neo-liberals that got us into this mess in the first place. Now the UK and Dutch government are whinging that a country with a population the size of Wigan should bail them out of the consequences of their greedy investment decisions.
  
  
• Islam4UK: I'm going to say it again. The media encourage the most anti-social ways of making your point. A tiny organisation pretends it's going to march through Wooton Bassett and become a national talking point for more than a week.
  
  If you represent a point of view that actually has support in this country you have to move Heaven and Earth to get your point in the papers.
  
  
• Rod Liddle: will he become the editor of the Independent? Dear God this country's depressing when this is even a possibility.
  
  
• Brighton: good article in the Independent today showing the Greens on course for their first MP. This sort of thing makes me worried!
  
  
• US: Lastly I thought this article of feminism and the US health care system was interesting.
  

Tory poster fun

They're having fun over at Lib Con mucking about with the latest Tory poster (using this via them). This is my unworthy attempt, click the picture for a sharper version.

It seems like defacing Tory election posters is all the rage at the moment, shocking.

New airstrikes on Gaza

Today the Israeli state agreed to pay the UN $10 million compensation for damage done to its buildings during last year's bombardment of Gaza.

This time last year 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed in a remorseless attack which also left much infrastructure in ruins. The blockade of Gaza has been designed to immiserate the Palestinians in the area and prevent reconstruction.

Tonight Israel launched new strikes killing at least one person. So far we have three air strikes and two missile attacks on the area apparently in response to mortar attacks which were in response to an air strike which was, no doubt, in response to something else in this continuing cycle.

Haaretz also reports that thousands of leaflets were dropped on the area which "featured a map, and warns Gazans that anyone within 300 meters of the security fence is endangering himself."

These attacks coincide with rioting at the Egyptian border (pictured) over the aid convoy led by George Galloway hoping to break the blockade. These riots resulted in a number of injuries, the death of an Egyptian soldier and their eventual entry into Gaza. Green Party councillor Peter Offord is part of that convoy, and whilst he has been through the mill somewhat I believe he's currently alright.

Let's hope this is not the beginning a repeat of the horrors of last year.

Lest we forget: Tories have wild cards too

Whilst Hoon, Hewitt and Clarke might be doing their best to destabilise the government we should remember that the Tory Party is not exactly eccentric free. Two bits of news this week caught my eye from Parliamentary hopefuls in Camden and in Brighton.

In Brighton we have Charlotte Vere who has just ruled herself out of the running for proportionate and clean campaigner of the year having chosen to compare the Greens to the BNP.

She's obviously decided that political debate needs a good injection of barmy but, her position is of a piece with Brighton Conservatives who gloriously denounced the Greens as communists, all because we supported the setting of new recycling targets.

Well, she certainly has support as a whole swath of commentators who have waded in to remind us that anyone who thinks that climate change is happening is a communist, a fascist and needs to be taken out and shot. Nice to know which demographic Brighton Tories hope to draw on.

Vere justifies her position by saying "When I was at school my history teacher used to say there was not much between the far-left and the far-right." Well, I'm glad she's an independent thinker then and since she was told that anti-racist, pro-democracy, campaigners against climate change are the same as racist, authoritarian climate deniers it simply must be true and worth defending in the Brighton Argus.

I wonder if this kind of bizarre McCarthyism is a vote winner?

Meanwhile in Holborn and St Pancras Frank Dobson, the sitting MP, has found himself drawn into a row over the fact that he represented his ex-constituent who was recently executed by the Chinese state.

Dobson attempted to get the death sentence commuted and raised concerns about whether Akmal Shaikh received a proper trial which sent his Tory opponent wild with rage.

George Lee (pictured), who was a high ranking police officer, is keen to defend the Chinese State's actions saying that it is "good for China to have such strong laws on drug trafficking". Like Vere Mr Lee sees the problem as the far left and feels that "What Mr Dobson said is outrageous. Mr Dobson is a left-wing socialist – he wanted this kind of dictatorship as a student and supporter of Mao in the 1970s."

Despite hating Mao and all his works Lee then says that "I have worked as a policeman in China and I think drugs are vile. There are 1.5 billion people in China – they have been running the country for 5,000 years and doing quite well. They think, ‘who is the West to tell China how to run its drugs policy?’ The western way of doing things is not necessarily the right way. China is not as rough as London. There are no yobs spitting in your face or going round with hoods. There is nothing like the anti-social behaviour."

In the context of the recent execution it seems unlikely that the bereaved will be taking these comments in good spirits. I wonder if Cameron's position is that the Chinese government is running things "quite well" and if he supports Mr Lee's position that the death sentence was the "right way" to do things?

Anyway, Mr Lee has clearly been taken in hand because he has issued a new statement whose tone and style is quite different. Almost as if someone had written it for him. 'He' still maintains that "their government’s hard line on drugs enjoys plenty of popular support", heaps praise on Chinese policies more generally and that we should not be too critical because "there are strong pragmatic reasons to keep China on-side" but the whole emphasis has shifted.

The writer of the piece is at pains to say that Mr Lee opposes the death penalty and he made his own "quiet" representations on behalf of Akmal Shaikh, who he had so little sympathy for previously. In fact so different are the pieces that he's gone from frothing at the mouth to rather interesting commentator. I wonder if it's too late for Camden Conservatives to deselect Mr Lee and replace him with whoever wrote the damage limitation piece?

Who's for being the shortest serving PM ever?

I've heard there's a wonderful job opportunity on offer. It's only a short term contract but seeing as it's the last chance to become a Labour Prime Minister for some time who wouldn't be tempted to cause a leadership contest?

This is a tried and tested method of winning elections as there isn't anything the voters love more than a party in full scale civil war after more than a decade of betrayal. It puts disagreements over how savage cuts should be in the shade.

Hazel Blears showed during the European election that a well timed public rejection of the party leader can only lead to a brilliant victory at the polls. Obviously not in terms of votes, and yes, it does result in large numbers of your colleagues losing their jobs but, hey, if Charles Clarke can spit on Labour members anyone can right?

Hoon and Hewitt are just the latest example of the utter idiocy of what the Labour Party must regard as grandees. Either that or they are actively working to lose Labour this election, and possibly a whole number of them after that.

If there was going to be a change of leader it had to happen early last year, there is absolutely no way that a change of leader now (to whom? The Miliband clones?) will do anything to improve Labour chances, or their policies.

Why should any of us care if Labour are returned to government if even their leading members are trying their best to see Cameron win later this year? What's miraculous is that these people aren't lynched. The day is young I suppose.

Walter Mosley on Afghanistan

I was pleasantly surprised when listening to Radio Four last night to discover Walter Mosley was being interviewed on Front Row (16 mins in). Whilst I've not read everything he's ever written that's largely because he writes faster than I read and so it will take longer than forever for me to catch up.

Anyway, during the interview he mentioned that he was for the Afghan war. He thought that since Obama was elected "Now we're trying to change, we're trying to do the right thing." He conceded that Obama was upping the troops presence but he said he'd be willing to "go along with him" on that one.

I have to say I was shocked. Not that someone could say that, of course there are plenty of people in favour of an Afghan surge, but that this passionate critic of capitalism and imperialism was willing to "go along" with the war.

However, he introduced a condition. He'd only support it if "he institutes the draft." The draft would mean that "all Americans would have to go off to fight, not just the poor ones who have to join the Army."

The interviewer, knowing Mosley, was surprised and so Mosley explained;

"Look, if a country's going to go to war, a country should believe in that war... If [all the 18-27 year olds] are drafted and their parents are still okay with it and want them to go to war, you know the voters, then fine!...

I think that if middle class men and women have their daughters about to be trundled off the Afghanistan they're going to think two, three, four, five times, but they're not going to worry when some poor black, Mexican or white kid gets sent over."

I guess that's one way of getting your point across, although I still wish he'd warned, at my age any sudden surprises could be my last.

Blackwater disgrace

The unchecked and arbitrary power of the privatised mercenaries in Iraq received another boost today as the Blackwater soldiers who massacred seventeen Iraqis in 2007 will not stand trial. A US dismissed the charges against the men;

on the grounds that the five had had their constitutional rights violated by the way confession statements they had made had been used by the prosecution.

The statements were made when the men were under threat of losing their jobs if they did not cooperate with investigators. The US government had promised that their statements would not be used against them in a criminal case.

The Guardian describes the incident in this way;

The incident began when a heavily armed Blackwater convoy moved into a busy square in Baghdad, after breaking an order to stay in the US-controlled green zone of the city, prosecutors allege. The five were accused of opening fire with automatic weapons and grenade launchers on unarmed civilians, killing children, women and men attempting to flee in their cars. One victim was alleged to have been shot in the chest while standing with his hands in the air.

The men do not deny their role in the incident but claim they killed the men, women and children because they felt they were under enemy fire. I guess we'll never know.

What would an ethical foreign policy look like?

Robin Cook did us a favour when he came up with the phrase 'ethical foreign policy', even if he wasn't always able to live up to that exacting standard when foreign secretary.

It seemed to sum up for many of us what we wanted to see when it came to international relations. A step away from prioritising business interests and our relationships with more powerful nations and moving towards doing the right thing because it's right rather than the pragmatic thing that we're able to put a progressive spin to.

But, it seems to me, that there is no easy path to take when trying to decide what's a truly ethical foreign policy. It's worth grappling with some of the contradictions and problems in order to help clarify what it is we really want.

For example, we could take a completely non-interventionist position, as some nations do. That would mean we could keep our hands clean but at the cost of never acting to improve the world.

Would that policy extend to aid and trade relationships? Having worked in international development I know there are plenty of grey areas where you need to weigh up exactly whether the 'help' you are giving is really helpful, and where it is, to whom?

I take it as a given that military strikes and occupations of other people's countries would take no part in that policy, and arms sales would go too. However, should that be treated as a principle? The ability of the weak to be able to militarily defend themselves against the strong is not an irrelevance in many parts of the world, a genuinely pacifist foreign policy would certainly claim the moral high ground, which is quite a good spot to be able to see all the horror and murder going on in the rest of the globe.

Then again if we simply say that it's the way previous governments have used force and have been complicit in violence that has been the problem and we'd know better, wouldn't we be laying a trap for ourselves? Risking the slippery slope into liberal interventionism and before you know it we're propping up dictatorships to prevent civil wars or arming semi-democracies in the hope that they might see there way to cleaning up their act.

We can back pro-democracy movements, the fight for independent trade unions, women's liberation and a host of other life and death causes - and as a movement the left must be internationalist in its outlook. Does that mean we think the government should be shipping anti-aircraft missiles to the Kurds or printing presses to Zimbabwe's MDC?

The answer can be yes, but if it is we should carefully think about what the implications of such acts would be. Personally I don't have any bullets that I can spare to pop in a jiffy bag and send to a freedom fighter, even if I wanted to, but there are differences between our solidarity and demands as a political current in the UK and precisely what we'd see the government do if we had more influence with it.

Having said all that I don't want to imply everything is a grey area and, even if I accept sometimes bad things need to be done to produce a good result, I can't ignore that the means are things in themselves as well as the ends. The responsibility to choose ethical methods to achieve ethical outcomes is a heavy one.

There are no subtleties or up sides to nuclear explosions that can make owning weapons of genocide acceptable. Arming oppressive regimes to repress their own people in the name of our 'war on drugs' or 'war on terror' is not right no matter how you squint at it.

Lines exist, but even when they are blurred it doesn't mean not taking a position on what we want to see happen, only recognising the complexities on how we lend a helping hand - if at all.