Interview: Natalie Bennett via twitter

Having seen Phil's very interesting twitter interview, I thought I'd give it a try - and who should come into my twitter sights but chair of Green Party Women Natalie Bennett. I asked pretty hard questions I think considering she had only 140 characters to reply in.

Me: Hello, are you ready to discuss feminism via twitter?
Nat: Ready and waiting...

Excellent, let's start with a light one - what should the top priorities of modern feminism be?
Both local and globally, 1. Tackling women's economic disadvantage, restriction of access to food, to land, to jobs, to benefits.
2. Ensuring all women have control of their own bodies, and access to appropriate medical care.
3. Access to democratic power and influence.

What category of feminist does that make you?
A fairly unusual "radical" one: I still see the origins of patriarchy in the family, but think addressing economic disadvantage is critical.

Radical feminist? Are those the ones that hate men?
No. Just someone who thinks women promising to "obey" in marriage vows is a very, very bad idea - and all the baggage that goes with that.

So how do we get from marriage vows to economic disadvantage and access to food, land and jobs?
A good place to start is education. Ensure women are educated about their rights, and encouraged to use their abilities.
Then laws to make it possible. In the developing world that might be basic access to jobs, here for e.g. equal paternity/maternity leave.

You mentioned the word Patriarchy earlier. What does Patriarchy mean?
In short .. men having institutionalised power over women, power that's created within family structures and reinforced by society.

How do we change that?
Women individually refusing to accept that, getting together in campaigning organisations (with sympathetic men) & changing families & laws.

Serious question, although it might look trite - based on your earlier answer, should we ban marriage?
State should not prescribe what it is, allowing a wide range of contracts, some permanent, some fixed term, leaving "marriage" to religions.

Just thinking your main focus has been on legislating for a fairer society, if marriage is the root of the problem shouldn't we abolish it?
Discourage with alternatives, and educate about dangers of assuming it is "forever", when it often isn't. But you can't stop people vowing.

How does your feminism fit with other activism that's not explicitly feminist? It must inform your work but is there a tension sometimes?
Not really: my two other main areas of work are the environment & local issues. Women are disproportionately victims of climate change & ...
... many local issues, like difficulties of pedestrian access across roads, particularly affect women also.

It's my impression that a lot of grass roots or community activists are women - but the 'higher' you go in politics they start to thin out
Very much! Go to a local consultation & the people contributing time for free will be mostly women, the people paid to be there, mostly males.

You'd have to pay me to go to some of those meetings... what can we do to make sure women are represented more fairly at a higher level?
Identify the many who'd be good at it. Ask them, ask them again, badger them, put the forms in their hands, take signed forms in for them!

So your answer to gender inequality is to bully women? :)
You're beating lifetime pressures against stepping forward & like a reluctant woman rugby player I knew, they enjoy it once they've started.

We should start to wrap up... Do you think there's an obvious question that I really should have asked you but didn't?
Perhaps not obvious, but oft asked: How did you become a feminist? A. At age 5 I was told I couldn't have a bicycle because not 'ladylike'.

I should make some sort of joke about a fish with a Brompton... but can't think of one off hand. Sorry.

Last question: if you could have just one victory - what would it be?
Access to effective contraception for every woman and girl in the world, and access to safe, legal abortion for when it fails.

Thanks. I hope it wasn't too difficult fitting your answers into 140 characters!
Thank you! And sorry, still haven't worked out a Brompton line...

I quite enjoyed that format as it flowed back and forth quite quickly (particularly when you consider I was browsing the net while waiting for replies). I tell you what - these Twitter interviews might just catch on.

If you're interested you can find me on twitter at @Jim_Jepps and Natalie at @natalieben. I wonder who I'll do next?

Selection box

Another helping from my wanderings on in t'net.

• The Guardian website has a new science section.
  
  
• Sunny Hundal writes at counter point on the crisis in the far right.
  
  
• Richard has a personal report on climate camp at The Third Estate.
  
  
• John Molyneux writes on Marxism and the environmental crisis.
  
  
• Protesters shut down an Arctic drilling operation, reports The Independent.
  
  
• In Operation Black Vote: a Tory's been given the boot after ranting about Diane Abbott.
  

Diane's alright, but...

So today they've sent out the ballot papers for the Labour Party leadership fight. It looks like Vote Match is telling me I'm a strong Abbott supporter, but truth be told none of them get me very excited.

It's absolutely true that I share a number of political positions with Abbott, and she's likable enough, but I just don't think she'd be a very good leader.

When it comes to war, privatisation, racist immigration policy or a refusal to take the environment seriously the Labour Party is in the grip of the right, and there's no immediate prospect of that changing any time soon.

Of course there are some Labour politicians I respect a great deal, admire even, but right now all the leadership contest has drawn out is how far Labour has to go before it seriously reassesses where it's going. Nor does there seem to be any significant grassroots revival taking place.

Even moderate figures like Harriet Harman or Jon Crudas could have substantially improved this contest and given members an opportunity to vote for someone who can articulate left of centre politics. That said they'd have been pretty thin gruel for those with firmer politics or more principled ways of doing things.

It's going to be a long road back to power for Labour I think, and I have my doubts that they'll be a meaningful break with neo-liberalism in the meantime. If it's worth anything if I had a vote it would be Diane Abbott 1 and Ed Miliband 2 but I'd cast that vote with a weary sigh. (h/t Iain Dale for Vote Match)

Link this!

A few more links for your reading list;

• In Mexico they've sacked 10% of their police force to combat corruption. That's precisely 3,200 police offices more than the UK is prepared to sack for corruption.
  
  
• The lost sheep has returned to the fold. Bjorn Lomborg finally takes climate change seriously. Big news when an idiot recants.
  
  
• Renewable energy news: are swarms of marine turbines sci-fiction or the next development?
  
  
• Luke Akehurst writes in favour of triangulation. I don't agree but it's a really useful and well argued insight into the arguments for.
  
  
• AVPS has been interviewed on twitter. It's rather interesting!
  
  
• Finally a reminder of the costs of war. In Laos they are still trying to clear away the American munitions from the Vietnam war. Of twenty thousand surviving victims of these discarded bombs since the war only a little over 500 of them have received the artificial limbs that they need.
  

Sport: tearing up the rule books

I had a very enjoyable day today half-watching the Hopi fund raising cricket match in which a team including the very cream of the Green Party's sporting elite thrashed the Labour Representation Committee in a game so friendly that rules were taken as mere guidance and the huge bribes paid to produce no balls were returned to their benefactors.

A good amount of money was raised for Workers Fund for Iran, and factory workers in Tabriz who are threatened with job losses had already passed on their thanks for our efforts - although their views on the dodgy LBW decision that saw Hopi's Ben Lewis knocked out undeservedly early are as yet unknown.

The day saw some particularly interesting bowling which seemed more inspired by modern jazz dance than Shane Warne, which got me to thinking about modern sport.

The other day I was eating my lunch next to a tennis court where two pairs were playing. The first couple were taking it all very seriously, keeping score and no doubt alert for chalk dust. The second pair didn't serve once, concentrated on knocking it back and forth and seemed to be having a much better time. Not only weren't they keeping score but they didn't seem too bothered about chatting during the game, how many times the ball bounced, where the lines were or anything else.

Now, unless the first pair were in training for a professional match (in which case I hope they have a good deal more time to practice) ruleless tennis certainly seemed to be the way to go if the objective is to run about and enjoy yourself with a friend.

The process of strictly codified rules for sport began to come into its own in the 19th century. This is the same time that prisons, work houses, schools with rows of desks and insane asylums became de rigeur. It was also the time when we became obsessed with synchronising our clocks... mind you its also when we started taking sewage systems seriously as well so let's not stretch the analogy too far.

My point being that as the industrial revolution matured all kinds of aspects of our lives became mechanised and regulated in a way they never had been before. There were often practical reasons for this. If you were going to bet on a match you don't want your pony resting on whether the players spontaneously decide to make it a best of three just as you're about to collect your winnings.

These sometimes arbitrary rules create a discipline that might not otherwise be there, which can be good, but they also transform a social activity into a regulated and reified (sorry) thing in itself, independent of the players. By reified (sorry) I mean we turn something fluid (social interaction, running about, laughing) into something solid (set time periods, scores, set numbers of players, etc.). I mean we turn the moments of our life into social objects.

It's not that modern capitalism defines us so tightly that we can't see any other way of doing things, but we do allow it to shape the way we see things. Of the tennis players I mentioned earlier we see one set as playing 'properly' and the others as being less serious.

Some people might even go so far as to say the ruleless players should have got off the court and made room for a pair who wanted to play 'real' tennis. I don't agree. People made those rules up in the first place, we're people, so maybe we can make up rules of our own - and then break those as well if we want to.

Sunday Sample

A few trinkets I've picked up on my travels.

• The Coalition of Resistance has upgraded their site. Looks very good.
  
  
• The Red-Green entente in Sweden is looking less cordiale.
  
  
• The BBC has an interesting piece on paternity leave.
  
  
• Yesterday's anti-fascist happenings in Bradford; Lancaster Unity, Hope not Hate (more, summary), Socialist Worker, Indymedia timeline, UAF.
  
  
• Press; Guardian (video), Sky footage, Channel Four, Telegraph, Reuters, The Sun, Bradford, Telegraph and Argus.
  
  
• Pics; UAF march, Yorkshire Placard, Bradford Women.
  

Second preferences and beyond

Reading the Labour leadership 'you ask the questions' in today's Independent I came across this interesting question. "If you were forced to choose, which other candidate would you recommend your supporters to make their second preference? "

It's a good question because the answer tells you something useful about the candidate both politically and in terms of how open and honest they are prepared to be. Sadly the responses only told us that two of the candidates are brothers and the other candidates don't have the gumption to answer the question.

It's not a question that is only going to be faced by Labour leadership candidate. If AV is introduced for the next general election then every Parliamentary candidate in the country could well be asked a similar question and it's worth considering how candidates should approach it.

In Australia where AV has pretty much bedded down, having been introduced in 1919, every party issues a 'voting card' often after hefty negotiations with other parties. As you can see here sometimes parties give a detailed list and others they just give the top preference. Unlike the Labour leadership candidates Australian politicians do not shy away from the idea that some rivals are politically closer than others.

Despite the fact that sometimes candidates even tell the electorate to ignore the party's voting card locally, and bloggers put out their own versions (and obviously voters are free to vote how they like) these cards seem pretty influential not just in determining who wins close contests but also helping to define where parties stand on the political spectrum.

For instance Labor's comprehensive voting card (pdf) which details every candidate running in the country shows that they second preferenced Adam Bandt, the first Green MP, in Melbourne. Likewise the Greens recommended second preferences go to Labor in the same seat even though they were our closest rivals.

This seems pretty grown up to me.

I was really pleased that at the last London Mayoral elections the Greens backed a second preference for Livingstone, and on the doorstep it really did feel like it made some sort of difference in an election that is won or lost on second preferences. I'm also pleased that this is not a long term arrangement so that if Labour selects Oona King we can stick our fingers up at them - I'm certainly intending to.

That doesn't mean there's always an obvious second choice, but I really don't get those who refuse to answer on principle.

I'm in the Greens because, among other things, they want to liberalise immigration controls, they oppose the wars, oppose privatisation, want to tackle climate change and have an understanding of life that's not dominated by capitalism. Other parties will be closer or further away from those policies and so it's understandable that I'll have sympathy with some rival candidates and want to ensure others are not elected.

What's wrong with admitting that?

More to the point, if we do get AV, every party will have to decide what their approach is to second preferences. I hope that those who refuse to suggest how they'll be voting will be punished by the electorate as close minded tribalists who can't work with other parties.

It would be nice to think that politics can be a little bit more upfront than the Labour leadership candidates are prepared to be at least.

Six Sparks In the Ether

• The BNP is dying and it's death throws are becoming more and more frenetic.
  
  
• The negotiations continue in Australia. Will the Greens take a cabinet post?
  
  
• There's much discussion on the Spirit Level. Chris Dillow has some critical thoughts.
  
  
• The Guardian reports that fishermen admit cheating their quotas.
  
  
• Suitably Despairing takes apart the idea of Green Jobs.
  
  
• Jane has an interesting piece on lessons Ed Balls can teach the Green Party. Cheek!
  

NHS Direct

It looks like NHS Direct is to be replaced by a different deskilling call centre masquerading as part of our National Health Service. 'NHS 111' which is being trialled in two counties at the moment may well take over the functions of NHS Direct "within three years".

NHS 111 will employ less qualified nurses but rather will train its staff to the standard of 999 operators who, as it happens, are very good. Some people are up in arms about this but I'm slightly more cautious.

I sympathetic with Luna17 when he says that "I wonder what does count as a 'frontline service' in the minds of government ministers". The phrase frontline services has always been a perplexing one as it is unthinking populism that implies that workers not involved in face to face contact with the public are less useful, essential or cost effective than emergency workers - which isn't true.

Mr Andy C says that the government "are using some of the funding for a pointless and dangerous re-organization of the NHS and to pay for it they are cutting services." Well, I'm certainly for less NHS re-organisations. As someone who worked in the NHS for eights years and underwent a number of Labour led shake-ups I can testify they are a pain in the bum, tended to lead to a worse service and when laid on top of each other disorientated and demoralised staff.

However, I wont be signing the Save NHS Direct petition. I'm opposed to the slash and burn cuts of the coalition government, I'm not going to make it a point of principle to be opposed to any reorganisation or more efficient use of resources.

As far as I'm concerned when the service was set up it was part of an ongoing process of deskilling the professions. So we have PCSOs, teaching assistants, and call centre workers instead of police officers, teachers and doctors. All of the former do good things, but as a trend it undermines the quality of public services. It restricts the number of professional jobs that command professional wages available. Many teaching assistants and PCSOs actually want to be in fully qualified positions but find the opportunities closed.

When NHS Direct was set up Socialist Worker said "Advice line NHS Direct, one the flagship proposals of the government's health service "modernisation", is endangering people's lives... by giving wrong advice and not recognising emergencies" and reminded us that "New Labour touts schemes like NHS Direct, where patients ring up for advice on the phone or, as announced this week, on the internet. But these schemes do not substitute for the lack of resources and facilities."

At the time NHS Direct was set up (1999) doctors criticised the new service as misdirecting resources, creating its own demand and described it as a substitute for adequate "frontline" resources. There's been a consistent criticism, that substandard advice was being given - for example see Earwicga today - and in those all important emergency cases it can delay the time from when the first call is made to when the ambulance arrives.

More recently, the British Medical Journal reported that the BMA had recommended scrapping NHS Direct along with other costly initiatives like PFI and the NHS Database. This is not because the BMA want to scrap the NHS, but because they want the money used in the most efficient way possible.

If NHS Direct goes it does not mean that suddenly there will be no medical advice available, it means it will be provided in a different way. I'm perfectly happy to believe that people have been given good advice and even some lives have been saved when calling this service - but this does not mean we shouldn't find better ways of doing things or forget the numerous problems. Private doctors save lives but it does not mean I have to be in favour of a privatised health service.

As far as I can see the NHS budget is still ring-fenced and, while I don't trust the Tories with the NHS, I'm not against value for money or scrapping services that aren't that great. I am against a slash and burn economic policy but I'm not so sure this is an example of that and the reaction against smacks more of tribalism than anything else.

Crispin Blunt

I was saying nice things abut Crispin Blunt the other day who, as Prisons Minister, seemed to want to take a different tack from the authoritarianism that went before. Shame his boss didn't agree, but there you go.

Anyway, he's going to be in the news for a couple of days because he's announced the world that he's gay and is splitting from his wife. The personal details are not interesting and I'm not going to dwell on it, these are these his affairs not ours.

Iain Dale writes movingly on the difficulty of pursuing a life in politics as a rural Conservative whilst coming to terms with your sexuality, he also points out that Blunt comes from a military family which may have made coming out all the more difficult. As Darryl showed today homophobia has far from disappeared from society, despite the fact that we have undoubtedly come a long way.

There are some interesting political aspects to this story however. Like Crispin Blunt's own voting record on homosexuality, which is far from happy. Likewise, although he's by no means been the worst bigot in the House, statements on the floor of Parliament like this one during the equalisation of the age of consent debate make difficult reading;

"I believe it right that our law should discriminate in that limited way between homosexual and heterosexual practice... While I accept that, in law, we should tolerate people's choices to follow a homosexual life style and practice, I maintain that those are not equivalent to heterosexuality--nor should we pretend that they are."

The debate continued with Blunt being told "The hon. Gentleman perpetuates the myth that being gay is a life style choice. It is no more a life style choice than is his sexual orientation." This, of course, takes on new meaning in the light of today's revelations. Blunt replied;

"I am afraid that I cannot accept that. In our culture, the choice of a homosexual orientation tends to become the dominating influence on a person's life: it defines homosexuals in a way that heterosexuality does not. I am not condemning that choice; I believe that it should be tolerated. I do not, however, believe the two choices to be the same.

"It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth. [Hon. Members: "Shame!"] I am sorry if Labour Members do not like the truth, but I do not intend to run away from the difficult issues."

Without wishing to be too critical of Blunt in this tricky time I do have a problem with his insistence that homosexual "gratification" is somehow bound up with the exploitation of the young. I don't think that he was confronting a difficult truth here.

But there's more. In 2002 we had this little fracas. When one leading Tory figure, Alan Duncan MP, came out as gay the Conservative grassroots were not entirely happy.

Tony Collinson, chairman of the 1,400-strong Reigate Conservative Association, led the chorus of disapproval.

"I would not be happy if we had a gay candidate here - I would always go for a candidate who had a normal background," he said. "Our current MP [Conservative Crispin Blunt; majority 8,000] is happily married with two children."

This rather backs up what Iain Dale had to say I think. If Blunt had been open about his sexuality he would never have been permitted to play a significant role in Conservative politics.

Particularly when you consider, in the same article, Blunt's fellow Reigate Conservatives are quoted as saying things like being openly gay is "drawing attention to yourself" or "If he's practising then it's unacceptable. If he's non-practising he's made a mistake in bringing it up." or "I come from an older generation where this sort of thing was deemed unspeakable".

No wonder Conservative Home has turned off the comments on this one. As I say Blunt's sexuality is his own business, and I wish him well with his personal problems. The complex politics of the issue, where homophobia still plays a role in British society, well that's something else entirely.

Some links you might like

• I'd like to welcome Les Ecritures to the blogosphere. Post number one, so far so good.
  
  
• Marina Silva's the Green Presidential candidate in Brazil. Interesting article here.
  
  
• Winning Tory candidate in a council by-election stands down after two weeks. What?
  
  
• The GMB are have voted for strike action among London's ambulance staff.
  
  
• Flesh is Grass ruminates on what it takes to be a top blogger.
  
  
• Talking of which Weggis highlights some of the top blogs that fell off the list this year.
  
  
• Interesting piece on climate campers restricting free speech.

Tonight's selection

• Kate Belgrave writes a well argued post on the dangerous dogs act.
  
  
• Nichi Hodgson says some feminists are more equal than others.
  
  
• Swindon Town, saviour of the bees?
  
  
• Neil points us towards a set of classic sci-fi themes slowed down 800% very spooky.
  
  
• If you want to read the responses to the Green Party leadership online hustings they're now up: Caroline Lucas, Derek Wall, Adrian Ramsay. You can also watch every sizzling minute of the Young Greens' deputy leader hustings here.
  
  
• Stroppy has the details of this Sunday's Hopi vs LRC cricket match. See you there?
  

Total Politics Top Green Blogs

The votes are counted, crunched and spat out again at an alarmed public. Total Politics have announced the top twenty five Green Party blogs. I'd like to thank everyone who voted for The Daily (Maybe) making a very welcome hat-trick, winning top place three years in a row.

You're all very lovely and you shall get your reward in heaven, or some other suitably ethereal location. Well done to those who made the top ten, which looks like this;

1 (1) The Daily (Maybe)
2 Bright Green Scotland
3 (2) Two Doctors
4 (5) Barkingside 21
5 (4) Another Green World
6 Gaian Economics
7 (21) George Monbiot
8 (8) Rupert's Read
9 (11) Mabinogogiblog
10 (9) Ruscombe Green

Congratulations particularly go to Bright Green Scotland who've leaped straight in at number two, making two of the top three based on the chilly side of Hadrian's Wall. I also note that two of the top 25 are recent defectors from the Lib Dems (the excellent Jane's Political Ramblings and A Week Is a Long Time) showing you don't have to have been a member for years to make a valuable contribution.

Obviously this is all a bit of fun and games rather than anything too substantial. Politics is a team effort, not a competition, and that also goes for political blogging. Well done to everyone who is part of the right-on blogosphere, whether or not you're on this list or any other. Still, thanks again, it's nice to know people appreciate you.

A lesson from history

When the Roman Republic decided that it wanted to dispatch Julius Caesar and his armies to as yet unconquered Gaul they needed to give his job a title. What do you think it might have been?

Protector of the Gauls.

That's right, and in the course of protecting the Gauls Caesar found himself having to kill around one million Gauls, a quarter of a million Germans, a few Brits and he also enslaved around one million of the barbarian peoples.

A more energetic protector of the Gauls you will not find.

In fairness to him he let them keep their oil and he didn't go on to describe himself as a 'peace envoy'.

Ground Zero Mosque Protesters only a little bit racist

You might like to check out this footage of a protest at 'Ground Zero' in New York (the site of the 9/11 attacks). The crowd doesn't like the idea of a Mosque being built in the area, one sign says that 'Mosques support Hamas' which is a strong point, well made - even if entirely inaccurate.

Anyway things get interesting when the crowd detect a Muslim in their midsts. One fella in a hard hat tries to have a fight with him, others shout abuse, someone shouts something about pigs ("eat pig" perhaps?) and the man has to be escorted away for his own safety.

The fact that he was a guy named Kenny who happened to be in the area because he's just a carpenter working on the site and not a Muslim counter-protester at all might be regarded as slightly embarrassing. The fact that he appears to be the only black guy in the area might be seen as revealing the the crowd consider lynching him.

On the other hand perhaps he's Bin Laden and the crowd were totally justified, maybe that steward who got himself in between hard hat man and Kenny just destroyed the free world.



Charlie Brooker also has things to say, like the fact that no-one is trying to build a Mosque there. Well, I'm sure these guys are right about something. Don't know what though.

Time magazine on whether America has a Muslim problem.

Monday's selection

• Oxford Kevin has a nice piece on the Australian elections. (Also the Independent)
  
  
• Harpy Marx argues we need to keep libraries public.
  
  
• Left Outside talks about Zombie Ants. Grisly.
  
  
• Jeff discusses ideological purity.
  
  
• They're discussing the gender binary at philobiblon. Tut.
  
  
• There's a cricket match for Worker's Fund Iran on Sunday with various Greens playing on the Hands off the People of Iran team. Should be fun although I can't work out where it is! Details should be here.
  

Australian election

Irrepressible Ozzie Pippa Lane points me towards ABC's live coverage of the Australian election results.

In particular you can watch their election coverage, and the various online tools. Feel free to send me links of any other useful election sites.

I'm told the PR section of the vote (the senate) takes a couple of weeks to come in fully, although we'll know the headlines today. The single constituencies are essentially coming in already.

So far we're looking at Greens up, Labour down a bit, Tories up a bit. Whether this means the Greens can win a house of reps seat or not, the pundits seem unsure... we'll see soon enough!

You may also want to follow the election on the twitter hashtag and the Sydney Morning Herald.

Good luck to all the goodies, bad luck to the nasty parties. (My Australia advisor tells me the pic is not offensive)

Updates:

Australian Greens appear to have won their first ever House of Representatives seat in Melbourne http://fictilli.us/C5 Well done Adam Bandt, you beauty! Also in SMH

This is worth watching on Melbourne;



In Tasmania a green leaning independent looks like he's running Labor very close.

Greens run Labor very, very close in Sydney - extraordinary!

The Greens is doing very well on first preferences which also means that there will be more state funding available. One correspondent writes; "State funding is allocated according to how many first preference votes each party receives. It's $2.31191 per eligible vote."

Message from Oz Green organisers in London, UK: "Come and celebrate the Australian Greens' election campaign, tonight from 9am-2pm. Yucatan Bar, 121 Stoke Newington Road, N16 8BT. The Greens are tipped to win the balance of power in the Upper House and win our first ever seat in the Lower House. Currently we are polling 14% nationally."

A few links;

• Green Left Weekly interviews Green leader Bob Brown.
• Australian Greens website.
• Far right senator to be replaced by Green. Ace.
  
• Feel free to suggest more...
  

Are the Lib Dems splitting?

Sometimes there are stories that are true, sometimes they are half true and sometimes you just want them to be true. I wonder where the rumours that Charles Kennedy, ex-Lib Dem leader, is thinking of leaving the party and taking other Lib Dem MPs with him falls in that schema?

We know that many activists are unhappy, and some have even left the party. We know from the polls that many more people who lent the Lib Dems their vote last time wont be doing so again.

But we also know that not a single Lib Dem MP voted against the coalition with the Tories, a coalition they went into with their eyes open - no matter how surprised left leaning Lib Dem voters were at the turn of events. Certainly Clegg and Cable look very comfortable with their feet under the big man's table.

I suspect it's over-egging some real grumbling - but who knows? Perhaps the end of the Lib Dems is nearer than we think. Fingers crossed.

These links are yours for free

• Oona King seems to have the backing of The Mirror. Gasp in amazement as you read the thoughts of this new Thomas Paine.
  
  
• Derek Wall mentions economist Elinor Ostrom quite a bit but I've never known what she says that he likes so much. I was grateful when he linked to an interview that gives us a taster.
  
  
• On Me Jack is having a conversation with death.
  
  
• Handy online tool that let's you practice voting in the Australian election.
  
  
• Doc Richard replies to Paul Kingsnorth on where environmentalism is going.
  
  
• DEC emergency appeal. Donate to help the victims of the Pakistan floods.
  

Green New Deal

I was very impressed by the Camden New Journal this week that published a veritable essay by Natalie Bennett on why we need to modernise the economy with a Green New Deal.

Natalie is clearly a 'deficit denier' because she argues that "We need a Green New Deal – a major investment package to rapidly modernise the UK economy for a low-carbon future, while seeing off the recession through large-scale job-creation."

It's sickening to watch as the government attempts to deal with the deficit by undermining the entire basis of the economy. By turning taxpayers who are doing productive work into unemployed benefit claimants they're not just causing a host of personal tragedies they're also hitting the public services that the poorest need most.

The government like to talk about a low carbon economy, but unless they mean a society where no one has a job it's nothing but spin. We need investment to make the transition to anything resembling a low carbon economy. That doesn't just mean job creation but the right kind of jobs, that build for a sustainable society.

For me the way we deal with the deficit is to generate tax revenue with a combination of progressive taxation and rebuilding the economic base of the UK, not by cutting environmental projects and shutting down libraries.

Selection box

• Dawn Foster has found herself on the front page of the Guardian site. Her piece has recieved the best comments I've ever seen on a Guardian article.
  
  
• I've been reading through John Reardon's blog. Excellent stuff.
  
  
• I met Jeff from SNP Tactical Voting tonight who's now a member of Camden Greens.
  
  
• Australian election: the Guardian says it's a breakthrough moment for the Greens.
  
  
• Lenin's Tomb looks at how we treat refugees.
  
  
• The Independent looks at the science of science.

A level results in pictures

It's become such a cliché that A level results are always illustrated with pictures of joyous young women. In fact, it's such a cliché that I thought the papers would make a conscious effort to buck the trend.

Let's take a sample of the lead picture illustrating the A level results story in some of our national papers. (Excludes papers behind pay-walls or without lead pictures on the web)

Daily Mail:

Independent:

Guardian:


Daily Telegraph:


So, not only does the Telegraph accept that boys get A levels too, it seems to be the only paper that accepts that black people also pass exams. Shocking.

I wonder if there's some sort of law of nature that it has to be this way...

They do things different in Norwich

I spent this weekend canvassing and leafleting for the Norwich Greens who are involved in a monster council by-election with every council seat up for grabs. Currently the Greens are neck and neck with Labour on nine councillors each and we *could* see history made on September the 9th if the Greens become the largest group on council.

They do things different in Norwich mind. Almost the first thing I saw after getting off the train was the DFC chicken joint. DFC? Where could chicken come from if not Kentucky? Diss I suppose. Later in the, very good, Fusion 'oriental restaurant' we got a fortune cookie at the end of the meal. I think I'd last seen one of those in the eighties.

Mind you it's also been sometime since a waitress winked at me, so I'm keen to go back.


On to the work. Sent off to canvass I began to suspect we'd covered this area more than once, not just because ours were the only window posters I saw all day but also because of things like this post box message;


Well, obviously our leaflets aren't junk mail but I think this message probably does stop the flow of our right on mailings.

I was then accosted by three drunk guys two of whom were trying to get the other one to give them a piggyback by climbing on their rather reluctant friend. They set eyes on my rosette and shouted "Greens!" which obviously filled me with joy.

I was told if I took part in a piggyback race to the pub round the corner they'd vote for us. Dear reader, not only did I win that race but by a handy twenty meter margin. All those years of treating my body as a temple has paid off. You wont get the party suits doing that sort of thing!

It was a nice area with its own mural project courtesy of the local anarchists. I think my favourite was this one, which is a real addition to the community.


When they are not advocating smiling they put the case for riots. Now, "riot to work" has yet to be adopted as Green Party policy but I think what it lacks in a nuanced understanding of today's economic situation it more than makes up for in heart.


Although the people of Norwich were a friendly bunch it is a very different place than London. For instance on the Saturday I literally only saw one black person and, I kid you not, he was being searched by the police. I don't think the Norfolk constabulary have got up to speed with our modern ways.

Possible institutional racism aside I do approve of the van we spotted for Dick Cann, the singing plasterer. While the quality of plastering is guaranteed the quality of singing is not. Brilliant! I hope he's getting lots of work, although possibly not next door to me.


I was intrigued by the opposition literature which goes out of its way to attack the Greens. This makes Norwich the envy of a great many Green groups round the country who find it bloody difficult to get themselves slated by the other parties.

However, one thing that did catch my eye is that both Lib Dems and Labour had graphs countering Green 'lies'. The irony being that both graphs are deliberately designed to deceive the public.

Labour's is hilarious. Their 'by-election special' tells us not to be 'tricked by the Green Party' in the forthcoming council vote accompanied by a graph of how many MPs there are in Parliament! What - the - Sam - Hill - are - they - smoking?

I know that now Labour have gone from both MPs in Norwich at the last election to both being Tories this time (although one's in the Lib Dems of course) so they're probably quite focused on Parliament but this doesn't actually demonstrate a good understanding of what election will be taking place in September - but maybe they do know that and are actually trying to 'trick' the electorate, no, they wouldn't do that.


The Lib Dem's one is slightly more painful in that it is based on something a bit more relevant. They make the point that we fought to win the Norwich South and in fact came fourth (a good fourth but fourth none the less). It was disappointing that we 'only' doubled our vote and while we're still in a good position for these elections it's a fair point they are trying to make, and that's inconvenient to us.

Sadly they choose to make that point in a completely dishonest way with a typical Lib Dem graph. The irony of being accused of being liars next to a graph that a) makes it appear that getting more than half the LD vote was actually less than a third of it and b) where they deliberately narrow the width of the Green's bar making the under height column appear less substantial than it actually is.

Anyone who's read How to Lie with Statistics will know that these are deliberate techniques, that cannot happen by accident, where you want to deceive the reader into thinking your statistics say something they do not.

I suppose I should be grateful that they've made their point in such a dishonest way, undermining their point. Mind you, after disappointing so many left leaning Lib Dem voters with their coalition they aren't going to be much of a problem anyway when trying to build on their pitiful four councillors on the council.


So, all in all, it was quite an exciting weekend jam packed full of urban fitness, friendly conversations on the doorstep, lovely meals and enormous bags of leafleting.

Norwich Greens have produced a great little video as part of their campaign which is worth watching and then passing on but most importantly if you're able to help out with the effort to become the first ever council with the Greens as the largest group then you should get yourself to Norwich .

Six links for you

• On the Australian elections it seems that the unions are bankrolling the Greens by more than half a million dollars. Good.
  
  
• George Irvin takes an in depth look at deficit responses around Europe. (h/t Gayle)
  
  
• The Guardian reports that Brazil has banned election satire in the run-up to the Presidential vote.
  
  
• Snowball looks at Ralph Miliband's thoughts on humanitarian intervention in Afghanistan.
  
  
• I loved this cartoon from ASBO Jesus.
  
  
• Don't forget that you can still donate online to the DEC Appeal to help those effected by flooding in Pakistan.
  

Green Party Launched in Spain

I've often wondered why there was no Green Party in Spain, and by often I mean I once wondered it. Well I need wonder no longer because they've decided to set one up.

Spain has an active environmentalist movement but the government sadly is not always sympathetic, for example they abolished the environment ministry two years ago subsuming it within the department of agriculture.

Alexander Sanchez, head of SEO Birdlife and Juantxo Lopez de Uralde, former head of Spanish Greenpeace (pictured right doing something weird) made the announcement this weekend and ICV, a Catalonian Green Party which receives 9.5% of the regional vote and has Parliamentary seats is backing the initiative towards a national party.

Greens have certainly stood at elections but have previously been part of the United Left which has disappointed many environmentalists by backing subsidies for new coal power stations. It looks like there's a reasonably friendly parting of the ways and with a ready made, if modest, electoral base and well known figureheads they certainly have potential.

El Pais says that the party will be of the left, but not necessarily of the traditional variety. De facto leader Uralde also pointed out that the party would occupy a unique political space as the only party to oppose bullfighting, or with a commitment to renewable power.

Uralde says that years ago ecology was just about seals and whales but now it is a far broader political project. He went on to say "La aventura puede ser loca, pero los aventureros estamos cuerdos", which I'm loosely translating as "It might be a crazy adventure, but we adventurers are level headed."

A look at the online Deputy Leadership election

Let's take a closer look at the two campaigns for Green Party Deputy Leader. Specifically I thought I'd take a peek at the on-line campaigns. The obvious place to start are the websites for Adrian (who is running on a joint ticket with Caroline Lucas) and Derek.

Adrian and Caroline's site is comprehensive to say the least with candidate statements and biographies including their extensive electoral experience, recent videos, an explanation of how the election works for new members, Caroline's work and Adrian's campaigning as well as an FAQ.

The site is clean and well laid out and, apart from the landing page, is very similar in design to the Green Party national site.

Adrian outlines his political priorities as public services, green economy, reforming politics, and protecting animals. There's a particularly strong element on his site called supporting local parties which outlines concrete party organising and building local campaigns. For me these kinds of specifics will decide my vote.

When it comes to Adrian's endorsements we have respected party members Peter Cranie, Jean Lambert, Peter Tatchell, Patrick Harvie, Darren Johnson, as well as a host of cllrs and moderately well known party activists. The 32 endorsements don't include every senior elected Party member, but it's pretty close.

Derek has less on his site, which is not necessarily a bad thing, and his opening statement is succinct and clear. However the formatting is all over the place and the design far more clunky with misaligned photos, a grey colour scheme and sloppy use of paragraphing which could be sorted out in literally two minutes rendering the endorsements in particular far more accessible.

The site includes videos from his time as principal speaker and an old video with Frost debating a climate denier which are interesting but do feel quite dated. He also includes links to his writings in the Morning Star, the Australian Green Left Weekly and his academic work.

Derek lays out the themes of his campaign by talking about going 'beyond the crisis', that he's a natural communicator, a global green and has thirty years of experience. There is no specific section on what Derek would actually do as Deputy Leader, although having said that some of the endorsement texts are very interesting and well worth a read.

Derek has 21 endorsements most significantly from Comedian Mark Steel and union activist Jerry Hicks. The rest of nominations are all, I think, from Green Left members like the stupendous Jonathan Buckner and serious party stalwarts such as Joseph Healey. Derek only has two elected Greens in his endorsements (two councillors) which, combined with the politically narrow support, does look like a weakness to be honest.

Moving on to the Facebook fan pages we see that Adrian currently has 139 fans for the election and Derek just pips him at the post with 143.

The first thing that grabbed me was that Derek's photo has him relaxed in an informal pose with open shirt and the info page focuses on policy. Adrian's page has him in a far more formal pose complete with tie, and photoshopped in with Caroline, which seems a little unnecessary as there are plenty of pictures of the two of them together.

Adrian has pledges on what he'd do as deputy, and casting an unscientific eye over the members of the group it looks like Adrian has broader support in the party and Derek a clearer left constituency with more non-party members as fans. However, Adrian's wall is more interactive with lots of messages of support while Derek's is mainly messages from the campaign to supporters.

Checking out their non-campaign feeds I notice Adrian has basically a press release style page with a slower cycle of pieces than Derek's blog which has quite a frenetic rate of posting. Looking at the last ten things the candidates have posted on (at the time of writing) I see that Derek has four pieces on Latin America, two pieces from the Morning Star, two pieces on the Australian election and two on the cuts/campaigning for Caroline Lucas. Certainly very internationalist!

Adrian on the other hand has articles on factory farming, VAT, schools, Tesco, open democracy, the first Green Lord Mayor (in Norwich), the ConDem coalition, the Lib Dems and where we stand after the election. As I say this is two months worth of content compared to Derek's week's worth due to the rate of posting but I think the different focus is still instructive with Adrian taking up far more mainstream issues that are closer to home and Derek focusing on more international or ideological subjects.

On twitter both Adrian and Derek are having conversations with supporters, although it doesn't look to me that the candidates are prioritising this part of their online campaigns.

Green bloggers seem to be split roughly fifty fifty each way. The articles I've seen supporting either candidate come out at four a piece, although I may well have missed some (feel free to forward any I've not seen). I think both sides have articulated their positions very well on the blogs and, if you've not yet made up your mind, these posts are a good place to go to to draw out the differences between the candidates.

Adrian: Nishma Doshi, Jason Kitkat, Adam Ramsay (no relation), Peter Cranie
Derek: Joseph Healey, Jane Watkinson, Adam Pogonowski, Red Green Nick

For me both Adrian and Derek are left candidates, but they have very different approaches to politics. Derek often highlights the fact that he is a self-defined 'eco-socialist' and name drops the thinkers he approves of while Adrian almost always focuses on content and has a more task orientated approach to politics.

When I eventually decide how to vote I'll be looking at their politics, their personal capabilities and focus as well as their ability to put out a decent campaign - which has quite a lot of bearing on how effective they will be if elected to the role.

If Green Party members want to submit a question to the online leadership hustings send an email to ero@greenparty.org.uk with the subject header 'hustings question'. Put your name and local party in the email and if your question is for a specific position (either leader or deputy) remember to specify that. You need to do this today to meet the deadline!

Today's selection

• New blog on my radar Giroscope, although in fairness he's been going since 2006.
  
  
• The Oz election: Ben Solah argues there's more power on the streets than the ballot box.
  
  
• Greg Philo in the Guardian argues that we could sort the deficit bt taxing rich people.
  
  
• Gary Younge in the same paper picks apart the myths around immigration.
  
  
• Today's audio is Caroline Lucas in conversation with the Finns (just under an hour).
  
  
• On the deputy leader elections we have a post for Adrian Ramsay at Acacia Thorns and one for Derek Wall by Joseph Healey (132 / 139 facebook fans as I type).
  

Australia: vote Green Party

The Australian Green Party leader sets out the case for his party.

Stories from the Australian election

I thought I'd highlight a few of the stories from the ongoing Australian elections.

• The far right Family First party is in hot water. Beset by splits, sex scandals and, drum roll, tweeting disasters it looks like they may not do too well. Sad.
  
  
• Mr Science Show is looking at science policy and the Australian election - here he has a short interview with Green Party leader Bob Brown on where he stands.
  
  
• I notice that the Socialist Alliance are calling for people to vote Socialist and Greens. National convener of the Alliance, Peter Boyle, says "I hope the Socialist Alliance, the Greens and other progressive candidates get the biggest vote possible and that the Greens win as many Senate seats as possible and hopefully their first House of Representatives seat in Melbourne. Socialist Alliance members are campaigning not only for our own candidates but also for the Greens and other progressive candidates".
  
  
• In The Age Danny Katz argues that Oz should "Keep the boats coming, but please, future PMs, keep the Canadians out", the piece contains the immortal line "You see them walking our city streets in small intimidating Caribou-packs, offending everyone with their culturally insensitive Roots-brand Beaver-Canoe sweatshirts."

• Ozzies are voting in the UK, at Australia House. The Sydney Morning Herald has been doing an exit poll. The results? "The result was Liberals 45 per cent, Labor 39 per cent and Greens 16 per cent." Mind you the Australian Times did their own exit poll where the results were "Liberal/National: 34%, Labor: 33%, Greens 32%". Ummm... calm down everyone.
  
  
• Three links to parties standing in the election: The Greens, The Socialist Alliance, The Sex Party.
  

Feel free to suggest anything you've spotted!

Sunday links

• Adrian Windisch has taken a look at the wikio rating for Green blogs and crunched the numbers (must have been loads of work!). I believe wikio works on hard data like links, hits, etc. rather than how much people smile when they read your blog. I was surprised by some of the results here, but remember people, blogging is not a competition!
  
  
• F for Philistine has a lovely little post on scroungers.
  
  
• If you're following Labour's London Mayoral selection you may well be interested in selection spotlight who have all the gossip. King has flagged rather, and although she's raised her game (she now has actual policies!) it's a fair bet that she is doomed. Two nil to the left then.
  
  
• Inside Story look at direct mailings and the Australian election.
  
  
• I've just come across Matt Blackall's blog (actually I think I saw it before and it slipped off my radar, glad to have it back on). Another left-wing Green.
  
  
• How can I recycle this? is a fun site where readers send in questions like "How can I recycle jigsaws" and readers send in their responses.

Round-up

I'm in Norwich this weekend helping out with their election efforts, meanwhile here are some links.

• Richard explains why he's going to climate camp.
  
  
• The Morning Star reports that all London's fire-fighters face the sack.
  
  
• Prisoner Ben warns us off the humanitarians.
  
  
• The Economist explains why we don't get more Chinese tourists in the UK.
  
  
• Talking of China the Independent on the relocation over almost half a million people.
  
  
• Last China story. The Guardian has an audio of China Miéville on his inspirations.

BNP chickens goose-step home to roost

It's official, the gormless BNP London Assembly member Richard Barnbrooke has resigned the BNP whip and is now an independent.

Despite being elected on a list system Barnbrooke gets to remain an AM, as the UKIP AMs elected in 2004 did when they broke from the party during the Kilroy-Silk ruckus.

This comes on the smae day that BNP Cllr Graham Partner resigning the BNP whip on Leicestershire county council. He cites the expulsion of members who'd dared to support someone other than Nick Griffin in the BNP leadership elections. Cllr Partner says "the party cannot continue down its current path to destruction" but I'm not so sure he's right.

Afterall if the Griffin leadership have to create a process that all but rules out members who don't have access to official structures from standing against him (by insisting on nomination papers signed by more than 800 members apparently!) then something is deeply wrong in party.

The BNP leadership is clearly worried about a coup after widespread dissatisfaction in the party's ranks over the dismal election flop that saw their target seats go backwards and a host of BNP councillors lose their seats. I suspect the implosion is going to continue for some time to come.

Official recommendations in internal elections

There's been an interesting debate developing around whether or not it's anti-democratic for the official top brass to endorse candidates running in a contested election. For those who are opposed it seems to say 'Sure, you *can* vote for the other candidate, but really, it's against policy'.

Let's look at the current Green Party deputy leadership election. Here we have Derek Wall running against Adrian Ramsay, both known and respected figures in the party, but of course Adrian is not just the incumbent he is also running as a joint ticket with the uncontested (and currently unbeatable) Caroline Lucas. Some people clearly think this is a problem.

Personally I'm OK with this because, to me, it seems like useful information to know who Caroline's preferred deputy is. Also the fact that they are running as a team implies a shared political vision or approach, which again is useful information to those deciding where to place their support. The fact that it is overwhelmingly seen as an (undue?) advantage to Adrian is simply because Lucas is well respected in the party - but doesn't this mean her opinion counts and should be heard? Members should have received their ballot papers this week and will still have the option of voting for Derek as deputy, no matter how official Caroline's endorsement may feel to some.

The hard-left example

This is a far cry from the way far-left groupings organise their internal leadership elections. These are decided by the hardcore activists (usually by show of hands) at conferences under the watchful eye of organisers, rather than by post to all members in a secret ballot. They also always use slate systems which suffocate debate, reducing members' options to being in favour or opposed to the official party selection. This gives tremendous weight to a self-perpetuating leadership and all but declares even nuanced disagreement on (or among) candidates as an automatic ticket to political Coventry, which is even worse than the actual Coventry - if you can imagine such a thing.

That's better than CAAT though. I was horrified when I discovered that the Campaign Against Arms Trade has no elections at all but some sort of nebulous self-selected body of elders. It ticks along pretty nicely without all that fuss of members deciding how their money is spent or anything. They still manage to make a worthwhile contribution to the movement, but I think that's inadequate for any organisation that does not want to get mired in conservatism or risk becoming a self-sustaining clique.

For me tickets, like the Lucas/Ramsay combined candidacy provide a useful function as long as members have the power to buck the recommendations if they so choose, which in the Greens they do because they still vote for individuals, not lists. However, I would draw the line at 'official' tickets, which seem inappropriate, painting those unlucky enough not to be on that list as unrepresentative of the organisation, when surely that's what the election is there to decide.

Official recommendations

An interesting variation on this is the Fawcett Society's internal trustee elections, which are taking place at the moment. Here members are being asked to elect six of nine candidates (using the completely inappropriate STV system). The existing Fawcett board provide their recommendations of which six they want members to elect to help to run it which goes out with the candidate statements.

While I'm not informed enough to quibble with the out-going board's recommendation which is probably sound (and the London Library use the same system) this process does seem to have a few ethical issues when it comes to accountability and openness.

Caroline Lucas endorsing Adrian may *feel* like the official endorsement of the Green Party to some members but it falls far short of the Fawcett option of the organisation actually telling members who it wants them to elect to hold it to account.

Note: If Green Party members want to submit a question to the online leadership hustings send an email to ero@greenparty.org.uk with the subject header 'hustings question'. Put your name and local party in the email and if your question is for a specific position (either leader or deputy) remember to specify that.

Today's picks

• Iain Dale hosted the first broadcast, hour long, debate between the two hopefuls vying to be Labour's London Mayoral candidate Oona King and Ken Livingstone here (click latest and then Labour mayoral candidate debate). Oona describes herself as a socialist and then goes on to describe what she thinks socialism is. Hold on to your hats.
  
  
• Ben Six has an excellent post on the case for and against the Libyan man jailed for the Lockerbie disaster, Megrahi.
  
  
• Red Pepper has a useful guide to myths about cuts.
  
  
• The CPS has decided to prosecute four police officers. Sits down, gasps for breath.
  
  
• On Friday 20th (7pm) there is going to be a hustings for the deputy leader candidates organised by the Young Greens at the Party HQ. If you want to come you need to book your place with the organiser j.m.buckner@hotmail.com
  
  
• Continuing my tracking of the deputy leadership race on facebook Derek is currently on 82 and Adrian has, drum roll, 82. Honestly. I wonder if it will be this close on the actual vote? There will be more than 164 people voting...