The sweet aroma of justice

Sergeant Smellie has been acquitted of assaulting a protester at the G20 after the key witness failed to show up at the trial.

According to the CPS "Smellie lost his self-control because of Fisher's irritating, aggressive and confrontational actions."

Good to know. The next time the police are irritating, aggressive and confrontational (which apparently does happen occasionally) you are perfectly within your rights to slap them in the face and then whack them about the legs with a piece of metal. It's all good, the CPS says so.

Footage at the Guardian of the incident shows that the police were refusing to allow protesters to leave an area in a particularly aggressive way and had, moments before, used physical force against one person who, I believe, had actually been accidentally caught in the quarantined zone.

The protester who was attacked had stepped up to the Sergeant to remonstrate with him about the police behaviour and was certainly agitated, but Smellie's defense that he was frightened of being attacked by her appears laughable.

However, the fact that the officer was acquitted should come as no surprise when the woman at the center of the controversy, Nicola Fisher, seemed more interested in embellishing her story than seeking justice. Not only did she hire the publicist Max Clifford in an attempt to make money out the episode she also clearly embroidered the truth to make it more sensational, for example saying that she was attacked out of the blue rather than after she'd shouted at the officer.

Clifford said. "She sees it as a total miscarriage of justice. She was convinced that she wouldn't get justice." Well, you wont if you lie to the papers but don't even bother showing up in court. How was the prosecution meant to make the charges stick without the victim of the assault there to give evidence?

Only Fisher knows the real reason why she didn't show up in court. Perhaps she was intimidated, perhaps she's ashamed that she'd exaggerated to the press or perhaps she's just gutless but it's difficult to see the acquittal of Sergeant Smellie as a flaw in the justice system when she did not show up in order to give evidence and face cross examination.

Mid-week round-up

Feeling guilty that I've not got time to respond and comment on everything at the moment - will try to catch up soon. In the meantime here are a few of the items elsewhere that are worth reading, celebrating or just noting the existence of;

• My column in this week's Morning Star on immigration.
• Talking of the Star Adrian Ramsay, Green candidate in Norwich South, has a feature.
  
• Cruella's stint on the podium is online at last. Previous post - my little pony of justice.
  
• Forth magazine accuses the Green movement of being bought off. Wrong.
  
• Monbiot delivers up a slice to the cops. Right.
  
• The Third Estate have an alternative vision of the coming election.
• The New Left Project has an interesting piece - the sex work shibboleth.
  

The right to strike

I was genuinely shocked when attending Radio Four’s Any Questions in Camden on Friday night when Vince Cable, the cuddly face of liberalism, came out in favour of banning strike action - gaining the honour of getting the first boos of the night.

Specifically he said that workers in "essential public services" should not be allowed to strike. He was pressed on it and was adamant that this was what he believed. He seemed to think this meant both rail workers and BA cabin staff, both of whom work for private companies, so it seems they are essential enough to take away thier basic human rights, but not essential enough to take the industries into public hands.

While he doesn't seem to have said this in print (although I haven't scoured the entire internet), writing in the Daily Mail Cable says that "We are back to old-fashioned industrial conflict of a kind that we thought, and hoped, had gone." He compares the strikes to "union militants who once ruled the roost in Britain’s strike-prone industries and helped to wreck them."

I think Cable is making two mistakes here. The first one is that he is simply wrong to say the industrial disputes of 2010 are in any way comparable to the disputes of the 70's or 80's. The scale and quality of the strikes are quite different and since the mid-90's we have seen a dramatic decline in industrial disputes.

The number of strikes days the year before Labour came to power was 1.3 million while in 2009 there were less than half a million strike days. Union membership today is dwarfed by the size of the unions three decades ago. Personally I think we strike far too little and far too few of us are members of trade unions, but that's by the by.

His other mistake though is this fake even-handedness where he says both sides have a case and both sides are at fault - so let's outlaw strikes. This would put the employer in a position where they can run riot over their workforce who would have been completely disarmed, so not quite as neutral as we first thought.

It may have escaped Vince's attention but slave labour was abolished a little while ago and it is a human right to choose not to work. To tell people that they must work, no matter what the provocation, no matter what the justice of your case, is to encourage employers to be intransigent and arrogant beyond anything we normally see in the 21st century.

Industrial action, up to and including strike action is the only bulwark working people have against a dictatorship in the workplace. Employees have to be able to take *collective* action because the employer can take *collective* liberties with the workforce each and every day.

Whilst it's to be regreted that people wont be able to travel by train on the day of the rail strike, if we make strikes illegal we are effectively chaining people to their desks and work stations for the sake of our own convenience. That's a narrow vision because today it's them, tomorrow it's you.

The rail workers and BA staff took a clear democratic decision that it was necessary to withdraw their labour. We should support their right to take that decision even if we don't think they're right on this occasion. However, it seems to me that they are right to strike and I'd recommend reading up on their cases at the RMT and UNITE websites.

John Hicklenton: Be Pure! Be Vigilant! Behave!

I was sad to see that John Hicklenton (wikipedia) the creator of the likes of Judge Dredd has taken his own life after a long battle with illness.

Hicklenton was part of a team that helped create a bleak, if artistic, form of social criticism.


As a teenager I was particularly fond of the Nemisis / Torquemada episodes where an alien freedom fighter battles the religious zealotry of a human militaristic empire that sought to exterminate everything not like itself.

It played into my growing awareness of racism, religious dogma and political violence - although whether it really helped my understanding is another matter. Whatever its utilitarian value the stories were glorious.

By placing the focus on the psychology of discipline and order Hicklenton and others teased out how the desire for perfection was intrinsically linked to the desire for death.

Where change and chaos occur it is the product of life, which is naturally ambiguous, complex and difficult. By attempting to wipe out those ambiguities the forces of law and order become forces for death itself.

Makes sense to me anyway.

Torquemada in particular relied upon the artificiality of 'the other'. Those elements that seem alien are often only different because of the conditions we have placed upon them because of their alienness.

Years before I started thinking about these things possible I began to understand how creating enemies can serve a purpose quite at odds with the propaganda that supports conflict and hate. I'd like to thank John Hicklenton - he'll be missed.

Immigrants welcome here

Good to see UKIP's racist anti-immigration poster was defaced in Cambridge. If you are offended by naughty words, please don't look in the bottom right hand corner. It says fuck.


What the artists lack in neat handwriting they more than make up for in succinct passion don't you think? (first saw this at Ellee's)

Greens win Suffolk council by-election

Hot on the heels of getting a second Cllr Dean Walton in the Greens after a defection in Suffolk, we have just taken a seat off the Tories in a council by-election tonight.

Congratulations to Rachel Eburne who was elected elected to join Andrew Stringer and John Matthissen on Mid Suffolk District Council.

For the curious minded here are the results. Astonishing collapse of the Lib Dem vote there, but well done to Labour who managed to stick it to UKIP at the last hurdle by a grand total of seven votes.

	2010			2007
Green	444	61%		122	16%
Cons	176	24%		354	45%
LibDem	51	7%		309	39%
Lab	32	4%		0	0%
UKIP	25	3%		0	0%
	728			785

Orwell Prize for blogging long list

A number of excellent blogs have got through to the long list for the Orwell Prize for blogging. I'm particularly pleased to Dave's Part and Madame Miaow in there as they are both regular reads of mine.

The full list is as follows, good luck to them all;

• David Osler: Dave’s Part
• David Smith: Letter from Africa
• Gideon Rachman: rachmanblog
• Hopi Sen: Hopi Sen
• Iain Dale: Iain Dale’s Diary
• Jack of Kent: Jack of Kent
• Laurie Penny: Penny Red and others
• Madam Miaow: Madam Miaow Says
• Mary Beard: A Don’s Life
• Morus: PoliticalBetting.com; Daily Kos
• PC Ellie Bloggs: A Twenty-First Century Police Officer
• Ray: The Bad Old Days Will End
• Tim Marshall: Foreign Matters
• Winston Smith: Working with the Underclass

Also good luck to the Spirit Level which is up for the book award.

Budget responses

Personally I thought Darling's budget was unsurprising. Some things went up, shock. Budget consistent with the "Don't cut now, cut later" ethos that is Labour's election pose which simultaneously allows them to paint their pending cuts as a good thing because they are simply further away than the cuts of the other parties.

BBC Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders summed up Mr Darling's message as "it's bad, but not as bad as we thought - and not nearly as bad as it would have been under the Conservatives".

The Tory response was equally predictable. They said that Labour nicks ideas off them, which it does. Cameron also said "We need a credible plan to cut the deficit. We need an unleashing of enterprise across the nation. We need a plan to boost employment through radical welfare and school reform." I'm fairly sure this makes no sense, how does laying off civil servants "unleash" enterprise?

Nick Clegg, who apparently leads a party called the "Liberal Democrats" responded in similarly uninspiring fashion. After trying to win a bet by cramming as many cliches as possible into a single paragraph Clegg berated the government's refusal to slash spending by saying that "Labour should stop trying to kid people about this recession. They got us into it. Only by being honest about how we got into this mess will we ever be able to get out."

There were better responses from Ann Pettifor, LEAP and the Greens, who displayed an altogether different kind of realism - one that understands that poverty is not a positive economic tool and that we should be bolstering the economy not undermining it.

Caroline Lucas, Green Party leader, said that "Unlike the other parties, we will argue that increases in taxation for the better-off are required. We will raise taxes fairly and explain them honestly. Labour's plans depend upon wishful thinking about how quickly the economy and tax revenues will recover. They are unwilling to tell you about the cuts and tax increases coming later.

"In contrast, the Green Party will be open about what we would cut, what we would defend, and about the fact that we need to raise taxation from 36% of GDP in 2009-10 to around 45% in 2013. This would halve the gap between government expenditure and revenues by 2013-14 (as the Labour government proposes) and progressively close the gap thereafter."

It's interesting that when the government proposes cuts they never consider waste like ID cards, or Trident they always cut backs in the public sector.

Sometimes it's worth ignoring the BNP

In today's Morning Star I have an article arguing that sometimes at this election it will be worth ignoring the BNP rather than organising against them. Interestingly veteran letter writer Kieth Flett has got his response in already with a good letter in tomorrow's edition.

On a personal level this was a response to they way some people in Lewisham greeted the news that the BNP would be standing a Mayoral candidate.

I love sanctimonious posturing personally but it can be an inappropriate response in an area where the BNP will get a derisory vote. Going around telling everyone they are standing and how terrible they are is a tactic that we already know will drive the BNP vote up.

From the very first time the BNP had a councillor elected, on the Isle of Dogs, the tactic to mobilise the anti-fascist vote has acted to both drive up the BNP vote and the anti-fascist vote. It works because it ensures the BNP do not get more votes than the other parties, not because it decreases the far right vote - it simply doesn't.

It can make those who oppose racism and fascism feel like they've done 'something' to go out leafleting informing the entire population that the BNP pose a threat at the election, but the key question is whether doing more work than the fascists to advertise their presence is a worthwhile exercise.

It simply does not make sense in an area where the BNP will be getting perhaps 1% of the vote to employ a tactic that we know will increase the number of people voting for them.

The election is not about the far right and we shouldn't turn it into a battle against the BNP where it is not. Obviously there are a handful of places at this general election where mobilising the anti-fascist vote is the most crucial thing to do, Barking is a case in point. If you're passionate about stopping the Nazis get yourself to one of these areas.

In most areas the idea that running around shitting yourself because some sad tosser has told the papers they'll be representing the master race at the election, come on, get a sense of proportion. Shouting fire when there isn't one cannot be justified simply because fires can be very bad things when they do happen.

Selection box

A few bits and bobs that are well worth checking out from round the interwebs;

• Three well known Labour MPs have been suspended from the Parliamentary party.
  
• David Rosenburg interviews Billy Bragg on football, fascists and faith in his team.
• The Third Estate reports from the picket lines.
• Charlie Brooker on dangerous drugs.
• Prisoner Ben on the Tories, spin and unemployment benefit.

A few websites;

• Jerry Hicks for Unite General Sec.
• Roger Bannister for Unison General Sec.
• Dr Petra, who should probably run for General Sec. of something.
  

Lancaster and Fleetwood

Really excellent campaign video from Lancaster and Fleetwood Greens supporting Gina Dowding.

Weyman Bennett arrested on anti-fascist demo

Weyman Bennett, the joint secretary of Unite Against Fascism (UAF), was arrested this weekend in Bolton along with dozens of other anti-Nazi protesters. John Millington reports in the Morning Star that "Around 1,500 UAF members had descended on Bolton to oppose an EDL rally in the city's Victoria Square" where they were confronted by a police force determined to target UAF activists.

The BBC footage shows protesters shouting "shame on you" at the police as they pull demonstrators out of the crowd and at one point seize a dangerous looking Peace flag which they disarm by snapping its pole in the cause of justice and order.

It states that the police made 74 arrests and sent two UAF supporters to hospital with head injuries. Protesters were described by the police as coming with the "sole intention of committing disorder", which for anyone who knows the UAF is simply not credible.

The English Defence League (EDL) had organised an anti-Islam rally in Bolton with the sole intention of inflaming tensions between our communities. The anti-fascist protesters were absolutely right to ensure that they could not get away with this, even though they understood that the police and the far-right would be less than welcoming.

However, that does not excuse the behaviour of the police who, as this picture from the Daily Mail shows, like to choke young people who don't fancy seeing their fellow citizens scapegoated.


The Mail is surprisingly very supportive of the UAF who interviewed "Second World War veteran Bertie Lois, 89, who lives in Farnworth, Bolton, protested with the UAF. He said: 'I fought the Second World War against these Nazis. What did I fight for if we let them [march]? The EDL are the enemy. I would say to them 'you are the guys we fought for, what are you doing?'"

That question could equally be applied to the police. We can at least hope that the war veteran that the police knocked over (footage here) was alright.

A few other places not already mentioned: Dave Osler, Rivers Stream, Mancunian Green, Ian Bone, Permanent Revolution... Expose the BNP, Counter-fire, Third Estate, feel free to let me know of others I should know about.

Apropo of the profit motive

Last week we saw a massive pay to John Lewis staff, this week it seems the Co-op bank has done rather well in the harsh economic climate. From the Guardian;

The Co-op is paying its 5 million members - up 1.5 million over the last year - a dividend of £55m, 16% higher than in 2008...

The group, which traces its roots to the founding of the co-operative movement in Rochdale in 1844, today reported a 38% jump in new current accounts as consumers deserted the bigger banks in droves in the wake of the financial crisis. It gained 140,000 new customers, taking the total to 1.2 million, and doubled its share of the current account market to 4%...

Operating profits at the financial arm, which owns brands such as the online bank Smile, rose 21% to £177m. The Co-op, which now has 330 bank branches and customer deposits of £32.5bn following the merger with Britannia, is hoping to make further inroads into the mortgage market, of which it has 3-4%, with the launch of new products starting with a three-year tracker mortgage at 2.49% tomorrow...

[Peter Marks, the chief excutive said] "These are record results in what has been an historic year for the Co-operative Group... it seems, our business model has never been quite so relevant. Our Financial Services business has continued to flourish in spite of the global recession."

Just thought I'd point out there are other business models, and they can work. That's all.

Unions and bosses: two cheeks of the same arse?

Nick Clegg is in overdrive at the moment in his anti-union posturing. Yesterday he came out with this little gem in the House;

"Charlie Whelan and Lord Ashcroft are exactly the same. One is the baron of the trade unions, and the other one is the baron of Belize. Both are bankrolling political parties, both are trying to buy seats."

Now, on one level, I wonder if this is part of a new strategy where he tries to diss everyone in society. First he does most of us by going for union members and the rich then perhaps he'll shout "And I hate cats too, bloody animals!" until he's slated every group with any support in the UK.

But more importantly, is it fair to say that Lord Ashcroft is just the opposite cheek of the same arse to Whelan? Are they "exactly the same"? It doesn't seem right to me.

• Ashcroft made his money exploiting people, Unite gets it money from the people it helps.
• Ashcroft is unaccountable to anyone, Unite is democratic and Whelan is accountable to it.
• Ashcroft is anti-union, Unite is pro-worker.
• Unite pays taxs, Ashcroft dodges them.
• Unite is open about it's money, Ashcroft isn't.
  
• Unite contributes to society, Ashcroft feeds off it.
• Unite is unable to influence Labour policy, Ashcroft is Tory deputy chairman.
  

More than that, if either Unite or Ashcroft had offered to fund the Lib Dems he'd have bitten their hands off. Not much chance of that now though now he's made his badly aimed political cheap shot.

Of course, there are problems with rich people using their vast wealth to bankroll parties to ensure society stays just as unequal as it always has been. The problem with union donations does not lie in the principle however.

It seems to me that the unions give millions to Labour and have seen precious little return on their money. Last year there was a survey of Unite members (pdf) which revealed that most unite members did not think the union should fund Labour, nor did most members even vote Labour, only one in three did, not much higher than those who voted Conservative.

There is a question over whether the enormous donations from the unions to Labour represent the will of the members and/or value for money but it's hardly true to say that Charlie Whelan, who is simply following union policy, is "the same" as Lord Ashcroft.

How you can help me get elected

I try to maintain a bit of a distance between my day to day political activity and this blog for all kinds of reasons. Partly because if I told you every time I went out campaigning or reported on every meeting or event I attend then they'd be no time for anything else. This is not my diary, and I intend to keep it that way because that would be pretty boring.

I guess I tend to see this place as a space to discuss political, philosophical, or personal ideas and I've always tried to blog for enjoyment, not for rankings or for stats. Not that I have a policy of never talking about the stuff going on in my life, it's just that's not what The Daily (Maybe) is for.

However, I have probably gone a bit too far when it comes to the fact I've not really mentioned that I'm standing in the upcoming council elections in a very winnable seat.

Some of you may know I'm standing in Crofton Park, Lewisham, for the Green Party but for many of you this will be the first time you've heard of it - even though I was selected way back last year.

The campaign is going well and, apart from the stinking cold I've managed to catch last night, things are cracking on nicely. However, some of you might be so enthusiastic about the idea of Cllr Daily (Maybe) that you may be moved to give me a bit of support, feel free not to, obviously. Here's a few ideas on how you can help in the next seven weeks;

This Saturday:

We have our action weekend this Saturday, which is a fun way of getting the word out accompanied by dozens of other activists as we blitz our target seats. To take part come to our campaign shop from 10 am onwards at 252 Brockley Road, which is mid-way between Brockley station and Crofton Park station.

There's also a fund raising party afterwards to celebrate delivering our millionth leaflet (think of all the trees we've saved by sourcing the paper and inks ethically). It'll be fun!

Any other time:

Any time you want to rock up and deliver leaflets our campaign shop is open from 10am to 7pm every day. There's plenty to do and we've made it as easy as possible to get involved. You might even want to phone canvass for us from the luxury of your own boudoir, in which case let me know and I'll brief you on the drill.

Polling Day, Thursday May 6th:

I've been sorting out my polling day team this week and if you think coming to Lewisham and helping me get elected is the most useful thing you could do that day then all help will be much appreciated. The tasks aren't particularly difficult but we need to be in lots of places at once - so if you can get the whole day off that would be even better.

If you can only do one thing, this would be the one I'd really like from you because we're mounting the biggest polling day operation we've ever attempted and we're going to be stretched.

Donating:

If you want to fund the campaign, then you know what? You can!

Use this button if you're fully armed with hyper-modernist techno-knowledge.

Alternatively you can send cheques (before they ban them) to the Lewisham Green Party Treasurer, 202 Malpas Road, London SE4 1DH. Please include your name, address and phone number, in case of any queries. Make them out to 'Lewisham Green Party' to ensure I don't siphon off the money to fund my outrageous gambling habit.

Anyway, I wont mention it again. Well, I wont bang on about it anyway. Thanks for your support.

What are they on?

The calls to ban mephedrone are based on panic not evidence. It's tragic that two young men have died and the grieving parents have, understandably, called for the drug (which is currently legal and found in plant food) to be banned.

The government's 'independent' advisory body has said that it is likely to make a recommendation on the drug at it's March meeting. However, this seems to be jumping the gun as, according the BBC, we actually have no idea what killed these young men.

"Humberside Police said the drug appeared to have contributed to their deaths. They had been out drinking in the hours before they died. Post-mortem examinations are being carried out."

So we're talking about banning a commonly available substance and the scientific advisory body will give the government advise before we even know why they died and what they had actually taken that night. What role do independent scientific advisors play if they give advise without evidence?

If it turns out the boys died as a result of taking mephedrone then the public needs to be aware of that because this is a public health issue, but we need to wait for the facts which may point to a different cause of death.

It's all very well for the police to say the drug "appeared" to have contributed to their deaths but it's absolutely irresponsible of them to make such a claim when they actually have neither the expertise nor the evidence to back that up. The post-mortems have not been carried out and we do not know what drugs they took, yet it's clear that government is going to be bounced into a ban.

The police, the tabloids and some elements of the political class are using these boys as a political football to further their agenda, they should be holding their council until we all know what happened, not exploiting the tabloids and the parents' grief.

According to the Guardian one of the boys fathers a retired firefighter said;

"We don't know much about what happened but we think he's been taking this drug on a night out. I don't want him to be labelled a druggie, because he wasn't. He was just on a night out with friends, a normal, caring, hard-working lad."

My heart goes out to him. These lads were not bad people, in fact they would not have been bad people even if the drug had been illegal. If we're to make people safe then we cannot base our drugs policies on headlines. If people are poisoning themselves then we need to address this, but using methods that work not the failed methods of prohibition and misinformation.

At the end of the day the government's insistence on treating drug use as a law and order issue rather than a health issue is part of the problem we face. It's my belief that this must change.

Gove's fantasies about the Labour-union link

Earlier I had an email from Michael Gove, leading Conservative frontbencher. He didn't just write to me you understand, we're not even on first name terms - but none the less I got the benefit of his thoughts on the union strangle-hold over Labour.

Click the image to enlarge.

I so wish this was true.

However, I think it shows how skewed the Tory political perspective is if they can look at the Labour years and see a government consistently bending to the will of the unions. If only.

Who was the best tory leader?

Over at Hagley Road to Ladywood Claude is running a short series on who was the best party leader in the last twenty. He's done the Lib Dems and now he's on to the Tories. I have to say, seeing the array of 'talent' on offer it was difficult to know what to say.

It then occurred to me that although all the Tory leaders of the last twenty years have essentially been failures (Cameron has his dismissal to come, so the judgement of history will have to wait on him). How do you judge which leader of a party you fundamentally disagree with, that has been going from bad to worse over that entire period was 'best'?

I thought the best way to approach the question, which has been bugging me all night, might be to have a look at the options at each leadership election and think about whether the party's choice was a sound one at each junction.

There have been six leadership elections in twenty years and I'm only going to look at the main contenders.

1990: Major vs Heseltine

This leadership election was a choice between dynamism or consolidation, with the word dynamism being used in this context for bonkers. Whilst Major was in one sense the Thatcher-continuity candidate his premiership actually marked the end of an ultra-aggressive period of government. There's no guarantee that Heseltine would have wanted to go in that direction.

Heseltine may well have lost the 1992 general election to Kinnock as I remember a good number of people felt sorry for Major, something that even the softest of hearts would have found difficult to feel about Tarzan. If he had won though I've a feeling he would have been even worse than Major.

1995: Major vs Redwood

Major was not universally loved though and faced a 'stalking horse' challenge from fringe candidate Redwood. The fact Redwood managed to get the support of 89 MPs was quite an achievement but in the big scheme of things this was not a difficult challenge to see off but was an early warning sign of the internal divisions that the party would suffer for the next ten years.

1997: Hague vs Clarke

After the inevitable landslide victory of Labour in 1997 Major was no doubt happy to stand down as Tory leader. Who was to be the John Connor who lead the Tory resistance out of the post-apocalyptic nightmare?

Pro-Europe Clarke was not a natural choice to lead the party in an age of the Referendum Party and splits on the question, but he had two overwhelming advantages over Hague. He had substance and he was from the more progressive wing of the party which would have been more in step with the spirit of 1997.

From memory Hague chose to fight the next election on the basis of how reactionary the Tory Party was and the electorate rightly rejected him. Clarke may well have fared better at the polls but the party itself would have hated him.

2001: IDS vs Clarke vs Portillo

After Hague the Tories thought that perhaps they should do a Major and go bland again with IDS. However the 'quiet man' faced down two progressive challengers who both thought accommodating to the age of New Labour was preferable to living in denial. Either one would have made a better leader, but neither would have been acceptable to all party members and would have widened the splits in the party.

IDS was a disaster, so from my perspective I'm happy they chose him, but he was undeniably the most right wing candidate of the three. Portillo was a bit too fluffy these days and was loathed and despised by the homophobic tendency, even though he's not gay. Clarke was despised by the anti-Europe mob, and still is for all I know.

2003: Howard or no one

So selecting non-entities hadn't worked, nor had having actual elections, so this time the Tories went a coronation of a creaking, reminder of the Thatcher years. Howard consistently, perhaps unfairly, gave the electorate the creeps.

He didn't work either so, if there was a choice between Howard or no one, perhaps no one would have done better. The hyper reactionary 'are you thinking what we're thinking' campaign did nothing to reassure the public that the Tories did not have evil on their minds.

2005: Cameron vs Davis

They'd tried emphasising their hateful politics and that hadn't really worked out for them so the Tories at this leadership election at last had a chance to reject the old ways without having to vote for anyone from the left of the party.

The choice between two shallow nobodies ironically marked a change in the Tory fortunes. The party's choice was between what sort of no-one they wanted. Davis was the kind of vacuous fool who said the first thing that came into his head, Cameron worshipped at the alter of vacuity and promised a crafted and well polished shallowness that mimicked modernity.

I suspect Davis would had found he was leading a party that did not want to be led, whilst Cameron has managed to subdue the unruly factions and is, for the first time in twenty years, leading a united party to the polls. It wont last, but the fact he's managed to gain a truce within the party is nothing short of a miracle.

However, if he does not gain a proper majority at the general election after all the potential that the situation presents he will be judged to have fallen well short of what the Tories expect of a proper leader. However, they haven't had one of those for some time, so they should be used to it by now.

Five links

Organising my life so that I can do my regular link love on a Sunday is, as you may or may not have noticed, a little bit beyond me at the moment. However, I thought I'd highlight the following for your enjoyment, amusement and/or education;

• Liam reports back on the trade union conference on climate change, here.
• Green Party lefty Farid Bakht has been blogging at a new place, here.
• Counterfire has been relaunched. Observe its evolution, here.
• Felicity Lawrence reports ASDA was forced by UNITE to tackle its pay gaps, here.
• I've been browsing Lewisham 77 which looks back to a turning point in the fight against fascism, here.
  

French regional elections see center weaken

On Sunday the French regional elections saw the ruling right wing UMP take a beating and the Socialist Party (PS) extend its already extensive reach across French regional government. The elections shine a light on exactly how unpopular Sarkozy’s government has become.

PS - Center left. UMP - Center right. EE - Greens. FN - far right. FDG, NPA, LO - far left. MoD - center.

The right were determined to make this election about national identity and Islam and the vote was conducted in the context of proposed laws to ban the Burka. Whilst playing the race card backfired for Sarkozy the dangerous game that the right were playing stoked the fascist vote and saw the National Front (FN) resurrected, gaining 12%.

The FN’s campaign focused on the ‘danger’ that Islam posed to France and, as Sarkozy has just found out, if you encourage people to be racists they will vote for the down the line racists.

The results had added significance for the FN as long time leader Le Pen is 81 and is expected to step down from the party’s leadership soon. The regional elections were an opportunity for potential leaders to jockey for position and Le Pen’s daughter, Marine, who is already an MEP, has emerged as the likely successor.

The election’s Islamophobic rhetoric spilled over into direct action with dozens of pig masked protesters raiding a restaurant last week for the ‘offense’ of selling halal burgers. Commenting on Sarkozy’s tactics Green leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit pointed to the FN rise and said "Bravo Mr. Sarkozy, here's the result."

However the story was not one sided and the French left, which has not always been strong on these issues, were able to confront these racist ideas with mixed success. The New Anti-Capitalist Party ran a Hijab wearing candidate to national uproar and most parties of the left refused to compromise with the anti-Islam mood.

The Greens ran a very clear anti-racist campaign and saw their vote skyrocket, leaving them as the nation’s third party. It’s clear that whilst French society is seeing a rise in racism, there is a powerful counter trend of anti-racism.

Martine Aubry, leader of the victorious Socialist Party, stressed that “the French sent a clear and strong message. They today expressed their refusal to see a divided France.” That may be overstating the case, but certainly Sarkozy’s poor performance is a real victory for the left.

The rise of Greens was not wholly unexpected though as the Greens first won third place last year at the European elections but their impressive result of 13%, including over 20% in Paris, is a massive leap forward from the last regional elections six years ago in 2004 where the Greens polled just 2%.

When the second round of voting takes place next Sunday this puts the left in a formidable position because the Greens explicitly position themselves as a party of the left and take part in Socialist Party led coalitions. Negotiations have already begun between the PS and the Greens for joint lists in the second round elections which will see unprecedented Green representation. This means that while the left won 20 of the 22 French regions last time they are in position to extend that already impressive hold on regional government.

However, one of the headlines of the election is the record low turnout with over half the electorate refusing to cast their vote. A closer look at the Socialist Party support sees that they have had a successful night because their vote has collapsed less spectacularly than Sarkozy’s vote rather than because of some revival in their fortunes.

The Socialist Party has been riven with splits and rows over the last few years, that saw some leading members leave the party. Likewise Sarkozy’s leadership has been consistently rocked by internal rows and disaffection – including court cases and high profile walk outs. However, unlike the PS, Sarkozy has no potential coalition partners on the right with the FN adamant that they will not lend them support in the second round.

With the center parties losing ground and the good results for the Greens and the FN it’s clear that French society is becoming increasingly polarised, a pattern we’ve seen recently in a number of elections in Europe.

However, the parties of the far left, who stood on a number of unity tickets, did not significantly benefit from the collapse of the center. The left vote was, as usual, split – but this time between left unity coalitions. The New Anti-Capitalist Party (NAP), whose most recognizable figure Olivier Besancenot was the highest polling far left candidate at the last Presidential election, polled a disappointing 2% at their first electoral outing.

Much of the press attention was focused on the fact that one region selected a young female activist who wears the hijab. The party’s leadership were supportive of their candidate but there is no doubt that this was a controversial decision both inside and outside of the party.

The NAP were outshone by the “Face of the Left”, a coalition between disaffected
Socialist Party members, Communists and some smaller parties. They polled a more respectable 6.2%, however both parties will no doubt be disappointed with the results.

What all this means for French politics is clear – that the future is unclear. With racism on the rise and the FN renewal of fortunes the threat of the far right is still very much present. However the right wing government is unloved and faces opposition both at the ballot box and in the streets.

It’s quite possible that this period could see the Socialist Party put their troubles behind them and go on to win the Presidency at the next election, but nothing is certain both because of threats to their right and to their left.

Although those left coalitions to the Socialist Party’s left did not perform very well at this election, their vote did not collapse either and they may still be able to capitalise on the problems of the centre. Certainly the extraordinary rise of the Green vote shows that French voters are willing to look to alternatives and to oppose the growing tide of racism.

Not boycotting those who will not boycott

From time to time little blog spats take place which become heated, personalised disagreements of no interest to anyone outside the blogosphere. I have to say these are the one aspect of the blogging that I have absolutely no time for, and absolutely no interest in. They are tedious in the extreme and only appear political because it is political people who indulge in them. Just this once I'm going to mention one, just to make it clear why I'm not getting involved.

Iain Dale, who is a Tory blogger of some renown, is heavily involved in Total Politics, a magazine that goes out to all sorts of political types. Iain has recently interviewed BNP leader Nick Griffin for the magazine. This gives Griffin a platform and presents him the opportunity to pose as a respectable politician.

This is a bad thing and I wish Iain and Total Politics had not done this, in my view they are playing a dangerous game. However, almost every news source I use has interviewed Griffin and his BNP henchmen at some point so Total Politics is hardly forging new ground here.

However, over at Though Cowards Flinch, they decided this was too much to bear and issued a call for every political blogger to boycott the Total Politics blog awards because the magazine carried the interview. They explicitly do not a call for a boycott of the Guardian, or the BBC or Channel Four News, who have all interviewed Griffin, but target Total Politics because it's small enough to push around and Dale is a Tory.

That's not good enough.

AVPS points out that the boycott achieves the reverse of it's intention; "By advocating action against TP, the TCF comrades have ensured Iain's interview will receive wider circulation than would otherwise be the case. Inadvertently, calling for no platform in this case means Griffin gets a broader platform."

That, in fact, those who issued the call are more interested in emphasising their political differences with a Tory than they are in minimising the amount of publicity the fascists receive. They have ensured that this interview, that they say they wish never happened, is read far more widely than if they had never mentioned it. The success of the boycott call will be judged by how much harm it does a Tory blogger even as it helps the BNP get its message out which, in reality, is a side issue to the call - which is a big part of why I don't trust this initiative.

I don't believe Iain was right to conduct and publish this interview but I've never before heard that it is a principle to no platform or boycott people who don't believe in no platform - I think the idea has always been to try to persuade them they are wrong, something this boycott is not going to do, in fact it will entrench those who oppose no platform in their position.

Blog wars of this kind have nothing to do with real politics even when they work, which this one doesn't. I love Liberal Conspiracy, for example, but its personalised attacks on Iain Dale come across as puerile and tribal, something that I have no interest in and always makes me think less of what is, more generally, an excellent site.

I wont be taking part in the call for boycotting Total Politics. Nor will I be mistaking the fact that I despise Tory ideas for the need to despise individual Tories. The few times I've met Iain Dale I've rather liked him and don't feel the least bit bad about it, I just don't want him running the country is all.

Inventing new principles that we have to boycott people who don't agree with no platform for fascists risks weakening the no platform principle itself. No platform relies upon the idea that we specifically deny a platform to fascists, and only fascists, because of the threat they pose to democratic politics. We do not boycott people because they don't agree with us, at least grown ups don't.

Slasher Nick's coming! Clegg it!

Less than two months before the election and it's time for Nick Clegg to tell us who his political heroes are. This will really be one in the eye for those who say the Lib Dem leadership is trying to move the party to the right. How foolish they will look when he praises Ghandi or Keir Hardy or Arthur Scargill.

But who to choose, who to choose, who to choose.... hmmm. Madame Thatcher? The politician he most wants to to align himself with is Margaret Thatcher.

But hold on, no, perhaps he's admiring the fact that she was firm in her views but not what she actually did. Oh. No. Actually he "admires" the way she took on "vested interests", otherwise known as the trade unions.

The Spectator reports;

Age, he claims, has taught him the point of Lady Thatcher. And, indeed, he now seems to see her as something of an inspiration.

‘I’m 43 now. I was at university at the height of the Thatcher revolution and I recognise now something I did not at the time: that her victory over a vested interest, the trade unions, was immensely significant. I don’t want to be churlish: that was an immensely important visceral battle for how Britain is governed...

This is what I sometimes don’t understand about the Cameron-Osborne act. A real liberal believes in genuine competition...

‘What I find so striking is that the spirit — dare I say it — of the battle against the dominance of one vested interest, the trade unions, is exactly the same spirit we need now.’

He also brags that not only is he more free market than the Tories he wants to institute more cuts than them too and will not raise tax by one penny in order to offset the hardship those cuts would unleash.

I'm of a different opinion to Mr Clegg. I think I detect a nuance of a hint of a sliver of a difference between us. However, to be fair to the Lib Dems the members are closer to Labour than the Tories and many have good progressive instincts, but they are lumbered with a bungling, cack-handed right wing leadership. Frankly, despite my disagreements with them more generally, they deserve better.

John Lewis Payout to Staff

John Lewis may be a large chain but it's also a workers' coop. I've always wondered exactly how that works and still don't really know.

What was interesting was the news today that John Lewis made a large profit last year, proving that you don't have to be owned by a Mexican billionaire in order to make any money.

Just to nail home the point, that surplus is distributed to all its employees - amounting to a 'bonus' of two months wages. Two months! I bet there are 70,000 happy John Lewis workers right now.

I'm not saying John Lewis, which is 146 years old, is the model for a new society but surely it says something that a little bit of fairness can work out for everyone.

Who is Carlos Slim Helú?

The world's richest man, that's who. I expect he worked jolly hard to earn his $53.5 billion which is... (quick mental calculation) a lot of money.

He essentially owns Mexico and a whole host of companies all over the world, although centered on Latin America. You could be eating a meal provided by Slim, watching a TV show produced by Slim on power provided by one of Slim's energy companies and then interrupted by a call on your phone, provided by Slim and if you had a ring tone of the latest band, hey, their record label could be Slim's too. All whilst sitting in a home built by one of slim's construction companies.

And what do you know it's your boss... who works for Slim.

Glory be to the world's richest man who has laid out his thoughts on business in ten easy to remember thought-bites.

1. Create an organizational structure with simple, minimal hierarchies; provide personal development and in-house training for executives; maintain flexibility and a rapid decision-making capability; leverage the advantages of a small company and use these to grow and excel.
   
2. Maintaining austerity in good times strengthens, profits and accelerates the development of the company, and averts the bitterly drastic adjustments in times of crisis.
   
3. Stay focused on modernization, growth, training, quality, simplification and the continuous improvement of production processes. Increase productivity and competitiveness, reduce costs and expenses by using global benchmarks.
   
4. Companies should never be limited by the size of the owner or manager. Do not be a big fish in a small pond. Minimize investment in non-productive assets.
   
5. There is no challenge that we cannot overcome by working together with clear objectives and knowing the tools we have at our disposal.
   
6. Money that leaves the company evaporates; this is why we reinvest profits.
   
7. Corporate creativity is not only applicable to business, but also to solving many of society’s problems. This is what we do through the Group’s Foundations.
   
8. Firm and patient optimism always yields its rewards.
   
9. All times are good time for those who know how to work and have the tools to do so.
   
10. Our premise is and has always been that we leave with nothing; that we can only do things while we are alive and that businessmen are creators of the wealth they temporarily manage.

I particularly detest number nine. The exploiter's charter.

Disorganised Rage!

I was reading the news that Lewisham is one of the angriest places in London whilst at the same time listening to a debate on the radio about MPs expenses where half the callers didn't even seem to know what they were angry about. They knew *who* they were angry at but when they tried to articulate that anger it all fell apart.

So thinking about anger I do think there is a strong dose of peer pressure involved sometimes. If you take traffic wardens, who are basically a group of people who do a socially useful job and have to deal with often angry members of the public, you'd have thought that society would give them a little bit of status - but no - they are universally vilified as if anti-social parking that can inconvenience large numbers of people was some sort of human right.

However, it's somehow acceptable to see traffic wardens as less than human and that actually makes their job more dangerous because some people take that as the green light to become abusive or worse when they're caught blocking everyone else's way and being a pain.

It got me thinking about the things that make me angry that *aren't* common currency. It didn't take me long to remember that there is one big one.

BAGS.

I have to say that those bloody bags that people trail along behind themselves are becoming more and more annoying as they become more and more common. On the tube sometimes it is nothing less than an obstacle course of these blooming trailers.

They're an obstacle at best and sometimes a positive hazard. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen someone go up the escalator with one of these things and then stop at the top causing the next person to trip over them. Particularly when you get a few people together with these things it becomes a real problem, especially in crowds.

Obviously they are useful if you want to transport lots of things across the capital/world and it's difficult to raise the rage you feel about these objects in polite society because more and more of us are becoming offenders.

So what's your unacceptable hate object/behaviour? I'm sure there are lots of things that make us angry that we all share (racism, injustice, etc) but it's those things that fall between the cracks, that it's hard to come clean about that I'm really interested in.

Asylum seekers should be welcome here

Another tragic reminder of the human cost of our government's policy on refugees and asylum seekers. Three people dead by their own hands because of the unnecessary cruelty and bureaucratic nightmare that they were forced to go through.

I hope their deaths can go some way to moving public opinion to force the government to take a more humane approach towards those seeking shelter and a new home. It doesn't matter which side of any line on a map you were born. People are still people, unless perhaps they work for the Home Office.

One Dimensional Woman

I went to the book launch of Nina Power's One Dimensional Woman at Housmans tonight. Nina spoke alongside Lindsey German (who wrote Material Girls: Women, Men and Work among many other things) on feminism today. Very engaging it was too.

Stupidly I forgot to bring a pen so didn't take notes as there were a few things said that I thought were particularly interesting, but inevitably I've forgotten most of them. However, where I thought Nina's approach was very worthwhile was that she took as her starting point a wider social and economic context.

Any discussion, whether its on childcare, Hillary Clinton or the wearing of the veil can only be abstract and sterile if you separate it from everything else. We can't understand these things on their own but only when we take in the place each issue has in the world at large.

For example, does the fact that Condolezza Rice and Hillary Clinton were able to rise so high in the US government prove that the glass ceiling has vanished and discrimination is at an end? Nina used a rather neat little phrase saying that we shouldn't describe these women as tokens but rather as decoys that act to distract us from the large scale differential between men and women.

I'm tempted by this argument because it's quite true that one version of feminism essentially fights for the improvement of the lot of middle-class women without touching the lives of their nannies and cleaners. I still lean towards more representation for woman on boards, cabinets and top management positions because a) it's fairer, b) whilst women can't reach certain positions it reinforces divisions across the spectrum and c) the struggles are connected, even if some have tried to decouple them.

As a member of the audience pointed out if you simply look at lap dancing, for example, in isolation it really boils down to a purely moral question. However if we don't consider the economic options that many women face and the choices they might make when faced with those options we end up prioritising one kind of oppression over another. Essentially if lap dancing provides a better wage and better conditions it can't be seen as a simple and clear cut example of exploitation but has to be seen in a more nuanced or sophisticated way.

Anyway, it sounds like an excellent book but I don't have time to read at the moment so may never get to find out for myself. Glad I went to the launch though as it provided some excellent food for thought.

Are you listening Australia?

Richard Dawkins, renown atheist and prodigious pedantician, spoke in Melbourne Town Hall last night proselytising the bad news that there is no God.

God's answer? The worst hail storm in one hundred years.


Have they repented? Have they heck - they only seemed worried that the sports have been cancelled.

What is going in UNISON - London?

Was forwarded this by UNISON member MarshaJane on the union's attacks on the left, and thought it was important to pass it on;

DAWN RAIDS AND BANS

The Union showed an even uglier face yesterday morning when a dawn raid was launched on the Greenwich UNISON Office. Not shamed at all by all the evidence that an orchestrated witch hunt has been in effect since June 2007, 6 employed Officials of the Union turned up completely unannounced and took over the office.

When Kaz made the point that the Union acting in this way had deeply upset the office staff he was told "we thought you'd be on your own". Only in the world of the playground bully is 6 verses 1 seen as a fair fight. BUT in fact maybe this is a compliment to Kaz as the Region obviously believes it takes two Senior Officials and 4 "organisers" to replace Kaz.

The Regional Official, Dan Pappiett, had told Kaz on Thursday that he would meet with him next week to do a handover. This was obviously a lie. The officials claim that between Thursday and Friday the situation had changed and that they were instructed by the NEC to take the Branch into administration. No reason was given for the NEC decision, if indeed there was one. Instead, the aim of the raiding party is twofold - Firstly, to send a bullying message but secondly to attempt to uncover evidence to lay further charges, just in case the court cases are successful and also no doubt because the ban was reduced by one year.

On entering the Office, Chris Remington from the Regional Office told Kaz to "disappear sharpish". By midday, the Region had organised the changing of the locks to the office. Most disturbing of all is the obvious collusion with the employer. Two days prior to the raid, Kaz received minutes of a TU Liaison meeting that he had attended. In it, it was minuted that "the Branch would be taken into administration and significant decisions would be taken by the Regional Office ". This was never said at the meeting and was obviously added by the Council following discussion with the Region. The Regional Officers also met with Ray Collingham and Shaun Rafferty (who showed them to the office) yesterday and we are aware that they went to the Town Hall for a meeting which we can only assume was with the Leader and the Chief Exec.

This was a coordinated and vicious action by the Union to the extent that when the office administrator arrived and turned on the Union computer, it turned out that it had been disabled for membership use centrally.

Most disgusting of all is the letter that has gone out to members from the Region stating that the Regions actions are motivated by the interests of the members. The letter says that measures will be introduced to strengthen the Branch - yet members are so disgusted we are only just preventing mass resignations. The letter uses the word "improve" 3 times as though the Branch is not functioning. This was also the mantra from the usurpers in the Branch. What an insult. If so much improvement is needed, how do they explain our results?

But the truth is clear for all to see - by improvement they mean changing the political complexion of the Branch and they want to do this by witch hunts and bullying.

Please do send messages of protest to:

UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis: d.prentis@unison.co.uk

More at Jon's blog.

Katrina victims are suing oil companies

The Telegraph is reporting that some of the victims of Hurricane Katrina are suing companies including Shell, Exxon Mobile, BP, American Electric Power and Chevron because of their role in promoting climate change. The class action suit states;

"The plaintiffs allege that defendants' operation of energy, fossil fuels, and chemical industries in the United States caused the emission of greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming [when they had a duty to] avoid unreasonably endangering the environment, public health, public and private property."

It has taken four years for judges to rule that this case can be heard.

Although I wont be holding my breath that this goes anywhere it does raise an interesting point. This may be a slightly controversial point but I don't blame the oil companies specifically for climate change, when it is in the nature of our economy as a whole.

I worry about the idea of "bad capitalists" who can be brought under control in order to make our economy fair again. Oil companies, banks, arms companies are obviously stuffed to the rafters with people who do bad things for a living - but the solution to the problem of climate change does not lie in punishing miscreants but changing the way we go forward.

Cheer up Tories!

I saw this screen shot over at Richard Osley's blog the other day. Is it just me or does literally no one in the picture look happy to be there? Some of them look positively enraged.

The woman on the left looks like she's weeping in despair. I guess the Tories aren't feeling quite as confident of victory as they were a few months ago.

Cheer up - only nine weeks to go!

Farewell Mr Foot

I've just heard that Michael Foot, ex-Labour Leader, has died. It's sad news indeed as Foot had a large impact on my politics, although not always in a way he may have intended.

Foot was probably responsible for my first ever truly political thought, which was during the Falklands War. I remember watching him on TV attacking Thatcher for not pursuing the war hard enough, for not being patriotic enough and for not putting the boot in hard enough. Even at my tender age (twelve I think) I thought "This is wrong, you're meant to be in CND and against war. This can't be right."

From that day on I described myself as a socialist - although my understanding of that word has certainly developed in the intervening twenty eight years.

The one thing that is likely to come up in the numerous obituaries over the next few days will be the fact that Michael Foot led Labour into their worst poll defeat in sixty years at the 1983 general election. The myth that has gone down in history is that this was due to Labour being 'too left-wing' and their manifesto was the 'longest suicide note in history'.

I think that needs correction as a large part of the 1983 poll defeat was a combination of the patriotic fervour of the Falklands War combined with a Labour Party split the SDP which took millions of votes.

As you can see from the figures the Tories actually lost ground at this election but because of the ridiculous system we use in this country the SDP-Liberal Alliance took a quarter of the votes but only twenty three seats, a tiny fraction of their fair share. However, those votes were largely lost from Labour and it was enough to crush them in Parliament.

Party		Standing	Elected	Gained	Unseated	Net	% of total	%	No.	Net %
	Conservative	633	397	47	10	+ 37	61.1	42.3	13,012,316	- 1.5
	Labour	633	209	4	55	- 51	32.2	27.6	8,456,934	- 9.3
	SDP-Liberal Alliance	633	23	14	0	+ 14	3.5	25.4	7,780,949	+ 11.6

If anything it was the SDP "splitters" combined with the stupid electoral system that created the extent of the defeat of 1983 not Labour's manifesto nor the style of jacket that Foot used to wear.

Anyway, despite his pro-war wobble Michael Foot was someone who helped strengthen the Labour left for many years and those who replaced him were sadly not his equal.

Possibly the best pot hole picture ever!

In local politics there are some issues that come up time and again. No, not the need for an English Parliament or the problems with hypothocated taxation, I am of course talking about dog poo, dumped mattresses and pot holes in the road.

There's a good reason for that, as all these issues have a real and day to day effect upon people's quality of life in a very upfront and obvious way.

The site Glum Councillors has been doing sterling work bringing to the nation's understanding a better understanding of the joy that is councillors trying to look sad as they stand, kneel or sit next to a variety of holes in the road.

However, this picture from the Coventry Telegraph, is possibly the finest example of the genre that I have ever seen.


The situation had got so ridiculous on one road that Kevin Roberts went to the effort of hiring a space suit and recreating the moon landing for his shot in a vain bid to get the council to actually do something about it. Gorgeous!

(with thanks to Joe Rukin for pointing me to this)

Five blogs you really must read

As you know I often highlight blogs that have recently come to my attention, but it niggles in the back of my mind that once I've mentioned you I may well not mention you again for some time - if ever. This is, of course, no reflection of the excellent quality blogging that's going on out there but simply down to time constraints on my part.

None the less link love is the very stuff of the net - it's not a competitive sport but a co-operative one which is what makes it so lovely. With this in mind I thought I'd highlight a few unaffiliated blogs that I find absolutely top notch. I cannot recommend the following too highly;

• Ben's Blog: the only blog of a serving prisoner. Thoughtful, enlightening and funny Ben is doing everyone a real service by lifting the lid on the day to day life of prisoners in this country.
• Liberal Conspiracy: the nation's foremost leftist group blog. In my view Lib Con's editor Sunny has made a phenomenal contribution to left blogging in the UK through this and other projects. Splendid stuff.
• Third Estate: they may not be quite so central to the left's blog armory but interesting, challenging and provocative the Third Estate team have done really well putting together such a strong blogging team. They go from strength to strength - all power to their elbow I say.
  
• Richard Osley: editor of the Camden New Journal, the best local paper I've ever seen, Richard Osley's blog has a very light touch using all the little snippets of info that may well not fit in the paper in a more chatty and friendly style. Excellent mischievous stuff.
• Brockley Central: well, if I'm talking about local blogs it would be unthinkable to leave out South London's finest - Brockley Central. Every area should have a blog like this. An invaluable asset to the community that helps spread local news and info but more importantly provides a hub for discussion about vital local issues.