The Daily (Maybe)

Blog off

2011-06-27T19:30:00.002Z

Update: you need to look at Big Smoke for my latest work (and my personal site). Thanks.

A few eagle-eyed regular readers have pointed out to me that I haven't blogged in a while. I know. In fact there has been a three-week gap. That's the longest gap there has ever been in this blog's entire history - including the time I had pneumonia - and every high and low of my life over the last four and a bit years.

Well, there's a reason for the break. I'm switching the blog off, but wanted to give myself a little thinking time before telling everyone in case I was going to change my mind a couple of days later.

To be precise I'm archiving the old girl. This is the very last post and in a couple of weeks I'll turn off the comments - and that will be that.

It's been fun but I'm moving on. I've set up a Jim Jepps website where you can keep up with any interesting bits of news, articles I've written and projects I'm supporting. I've got a few things in the pipeline so watch that space!

If there are two thoughts I'd like to leave with I suppose it's these. First, that the internet can be a civilised place if people treat it in the same way that they treat their own day to day 'meatspace' lives. That means the same self-regulation and the same willingness to not put up with the kind of behaviour that at work or among friends would be unthinkable but appears to be commonplace in some places on the net.

I think writing this blog has proved to me at least that it is possible to disagree with someone on the net without demonising them and to be critical of your friends without falling out.

The second is that the best of the web is where people think, not where people are fastest with the news. The blogosphere is full of people blogwarring with each other, jumping up to comment on the news the moment it comes out and knee jerking their politics just so they get in first. That's pretty unhealthy and it's led to parts of the blogosphere mirroring the worst parts of the 24-hour media rather than enhancing it or, even better, holding it to account.

I think we need to be more conscious of the risks of becoming an echo-chamber caught in a self-referential circle.

Twitter allows us to, for example, name a Tory MP arrested for sexual assault within an hour of it happening. What it does not seem to allow for is to not out that person until we know whether any charges will actually be brought. In our daily lives gossip is seen as a bad thing, and gossips are people we are generally wary of - much of social media encourages us to unthinkingly exhibit behaviour that most of us would regard as reprehensible in other circumstances.

Why else would a perfectly decent person serving jury duty think it's perfectly acceptable to contact someone whose case they've heard about a co-defendant? That's something I'm sure she would never have dreamed of doing before the ubiquity of social media but, in reality, is just as wrong as walking up to them face to face and discussing the, as yet unfinished, case.

I'm just thinking aloud really; it's hardly as if I've personally come a cropper of any of these tendencies nor have they been a theme of this blog particularly, but I am concerned at how the medium is distorting how we do politics and what we think is decent behaviour. The fact that these new technologies seem to by-pass that area of the brain where our integrity lies is a tendency I firmly believe we can counter if we work together to do so.

At least that's the way it seems to me.

Returning to the subject of signing off though, it's been an educative experience. I first set the blog up as a purely temporary measure as I wanted to test whether I could write a post a day for a month, but at the end of the month it was oh so easy to carry on. And here we are. It turns out that once you have momentum it's easier than you'd think.

Thanks to all the lefty, greeny, decent people who've been following The Daily (Maybe) for the last few years. Do stay in touch and good luck with the future - we're all going to need it.

Time to end the war on drugs

2011-06-02T11:51:00.000Z

This week marks the fortieth anniversary of the Misuse of Drugs Act which heralded the beginning of the war on drugs (a term first used by Nixon in June 1971). This war has done irreparable harm to millions and yet still, it appears, drugs won. It's time to negotiate an honourable surrender and accept we are well and truly occupied.

The ongoing policy treats a public health issue as primarily a law and order issue has not just failed, in many cases we can see that it has made the problems associated with drug use worse.

In the US the continuing anti-drug user escalation means that states are introducing mandatory drug testing for welfare claimants. Don't worry though all you deficit watchers, the claimant has to pay for the test themselves in order to apply for benefits, and if they fail they are simply cut off.

Drug addicts without any means of support - what could go wrong?

Part of the oddness of the whole debate though is that public opinion seems remarkably resilient. Despite the fact that you're unlikely to see an article in the press or a BBC broadcast advocating the repeal of the drugs laws - and God help any politician that suggests such a thing - there is still a large body of opinion that our current approach simply is not working despite the fact this argument is never articulated in the media or by our leading political figures.

A campaign to get the government to rethink was launched today but it was met with a swift rebuff. A government spokesman said:

"We have no intention of liberalising our drugs laws. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful – they destroy lives and cause untold misery to families and communities. Those caught in the cycle of dependency must be supported to live drug-free lives, but giving people a green light to possess drugs through decriminalisation is clearly not the answer".

But where is the evidence that drug laws protect people from harm rather than simply criminalise a wide spread activity? The campaign's launch letter states that;

"In 2001 Portugal decriminalised the possession of all drugs and, despite sensationalist predictions to the contrary, this has led to a decrease in the number of young people using illicit drugs, an overall reduction in the number of people using drugs problematically, fewer drug related deaths, and an increase in people accessing treatment voluntarily, things we would all like to see happen in the UK. Whilst there are other factors to take into account, it is clear from the Portuguese experience, and from other jurisdictions, that the decriminalisation of drug possession and use does not lead to an increase in drug use or related harms."

The complete decriminalisation of drugs would bring drug use into the open, allowing users to seek help when they need it, allowing public information to be actually useful rather than censorious crap, ensuring that those drugs in circulation are safe and well regulated and cutting out organised crime from this lucrative industry.

It may even begin to allow the "did not inhalers" in our political establishment to be a little more honest about their own drug histories and make stunning admissions like "I used to smoke weed because I enjoyed it." Wouldn't that be a thing?

Wednesday's Selection

2011-06-01T20:55:00.000Z

I dearly wish computers were less helpful. Right now my spellcheck is in French and I have absolutely no idea how to change it. How does it know I'm in France and why does it think I've suddenly become a native speaker. Anyway, it's useless to me now as very little of what I type is in the proper French, so my computer thinks it's all wrong.

When the Westborough Baptist church are being picketted by the KKK the mind starts to boggle.
Georgian London has an interesting post on riots past.
A little while ago Earwicga wrote an interesting post on how gender specific work in international development can sometimes be less than worthless.
The London Assembly has warned that the focus on frontline policing may actually reduce their capacity. I think this goes for all public services frankly.
Damascus gay girl writes on the Syrian government's offer of amnesty for her and other dissidents, as long as they behave from now on.
Reuters reports that the US congress may vote on withdrawing US troops from Libya. A scheduled vote has been delayed. "Democrat Dennis Kucinich, the resolution's disappointed sponsor, suggested the vote was dropped because it might have passed". The Republicans say they may yet bring it back to the table though.

Misc

2011-05-31T22:10:00.002Z

A friend of mine is involved in Cable Street to Brick Lane a film project charting 75 years of anti-fasicsm in the East End. Looks good.
James Graham advises theLib Dems not to take any more Lords seats until its democratic. Seeing as these are the only new seats they'll be winning for a while it seems a bit foolhardy to me.
Left Foot Forward have spotted that a right wing think tank commited to shrinking the public sector is not adverse to taking its own slice of the public pie.
It seems that former Met officer Ali Dizeai was probably phone hacked by the News of the World. I wonder if they've reported that his conviction was unsafe yet?
Britain is preparing bunker buster bombs for assaulting Libyan command positions - which includes Tripoli I suppose. Remember when we bomb cities it's called liberation.
The TUC have published a report showing that corporation tax cuts do not create jobs.

Some idle thoughts on water

2011-05-28T22:36:00.000Z

This may make no sense what-so-ever but I've been thinking about water. More specifically I've been thinking about our attitude to the ancientness of water.

Let me put it like this. When we see a moutain in general we go something like 'Ohhhh' and then often we'll have some thoughts about how impressive it is.

I certainly think about how old that mountain is and how that same mountain won't just have been experienced by generations of humans, but by all the generations of humans and loads of things that went before us too.

Sure, we've shaped the natural landscape significantly and when wandering through a London park I don't tend to have any deeper thought than where my next kebab is coming from, but by and large mountains are one part of the landscape that have a certain permanence.

They've been around and we give them an emotional significance because of that. Likewise ancient standing stones, great valleys and all sorts of cool, impressive stuff that has a lot of terrain-i-tude. Kudos to them all.

However, as I was being rained on earlier today I got to thinking. I stared at a drop of water on my hand and contemplated its history. Well most of us know the basics of how rain happens in a cycle. It rains, the rain soaks into the soil, that water collects and eventually makes its way into a river, that river makes its way into the sea and the water is taken from the sea into clouds that then rains on your washing as it hangs out to dry. And again, and again, and again.

That's a cycle that has been taking place for something like, oh, 4,000 million years or thereabouts. With the exact same water. The same rain that tried in vain to soak me today might have been the very same water that Napoleon's horse drank and weed out again. I feel kind of priveleged. It might have been drunk by the very last Tricerotops or the very first Woolly Mammoth - it was certainly around then.

Water has been the very stuff of life since before life got going, and by and large very little stuff that was water becomes anything more than water mixed with other stuff (like being part of a lizard), or water arranged as a vapour or a solid. Very little that wasn't water gets into a situation where it becomes water. Almost all of the water we have now was still water billions of years ago, and it still finds time to stop play at Lords. Cool.

But our attitude to water is rarely of awe. Even when it is arranged into an ocean that's been sat there for millions upon millions of years we don't tend to have those same thoughts that we might when confronted by a desert or a majestic set of rolling hills. We can be impressed by its size, enjoy its pleasures but I don't think we tend to reflect upon its age.

I suspect that's because we find construction fascinating and the building blocks of life common place - because they are no matter how special. It may be a passing thought but I still reckon that it's an important fact that each humble rain drop has been around for, what, a thousand times longer than the human race, including false starts? I think that deserves a little bit of respect, surely.

A few blogs to highlight

2011-05-28T21:01:00.000Z

I've been reading a week is a long time for ages now, Jo felt I should show it some love. Happy to oblige.
I may not have linked to Ann Pettifor's blog, Debtonation, before but well worth following.
Matthew Butcher blog's at A place to write. Do check it out.
A scanner dispairingly is new to me but looks really good.
Labour's Dave Harris in Colchester has a blog that is a useful example of how a hard working local councillor can use their blog for solid local news.
And last but not least women of the sky a fun little blog on astronauts, aeronauts and assorted interesting people.

Guest Post:: Climate Politics in Australia

2011-05-26T21:50:00.000Z

Thanks to Dwight Towers for this very useful and comrehensive guest post on climate politics in Australia, a hot topic in more ways than one. Incidentally, a few people have told me they've not been able to leave a comment in the last few days. Apologies. Hopefully everything is back to normal now though so do give it another try.

Climate Politics in Australia seem to me, a recently returned ex-pat, both fascinating and depressing. The Labor Government, only in power with the agreement of a small band of independents and a Green, are trying to push through a carbon tax that will morph into an emissions scheme. The Opposition, led by a man whose position on the reality of climate change changes from day to day, is calling for an election on the issue. Meanwhile, the “climate movement” is punching below its weight and is – by the admission of knowledgeable participants – all at sea.

As little history as I think you'll read.

The history of White Settlement in Australia is a litany of careless extraction. Whether it was cutting down trees in, extracting the value of the soil via sheep and cattle or mining and exporting gold, the economy and mindset has always been one of pillaging natural resources and worrying about the consequences later, if at all. If you look at topsoil loss, salination and extinction of species, Australia has a record to shout about.

Australia avoided recession during the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-2010, partly because the thirst for Australia's mineral and energy exports in Asia seems unquenchable (though it's a myth that China burns much Australian coal – the majority is actually send to India?), and the “must export every last lump of coal or we will all starve” perception remains. Guy Pearse, a forming mining lobbyist, refers to this as Australia's “Quarry Vision.”

At the same time, water and fertile land are scarce “commodities,” and the recent floods in Queensland and parts of Victoria are only the latest indication of economic vulnerability to ecological events. A very long drought has only just broken.

Climate change politics from the 1990s to now, in two minutes

The Hawke-Keating governments of 1983-1996 (think Blair/Brown only the ambitious Treasurer, both luckier and bolder than Gordo) made some of the right noises but basically kicked climate change into the long grass. There were, as remains the case today, many votes in coal and virtually none in solar panels. Liberal Prime Minister John Howard's attitude to climate change was pretty much exactly George Bush's, and he was an eager participant in the extra-UNFCCC “spoiler” outfit known as the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (which, as of 5 April 2011, has “concluded its work”)

Howard went into the 2007 election with a proposal for a domestic cap-and-trade scheme, but at the time Australia was in the grip of a long drought, and Howard's credibility on climate change (and other issues) was not high. Labor’s Kevin Rudd came to power, signed Kyoto and went to the Bali negotiations as the great new hope. Before the election he had said “Climate change is the great moral challenge of our generation.”

He bargained intensively with the (conservative) opposition about bringing in an emissions trading scheme. Their leader, Malcolm Turnbull, was unable to convince the mix of climate skeptics and mining interests of the merits of the case and he was overthrown in December 2009 by Tony Abbott.

Months later, Rudd was faced with a choice of either dumping the attempt to bring in an emissions trading scheme or calling an election. He dumped the scheme and his poll numbers collapsed (the mining industry had also been up in arms about a proposed new tax, and spent heavily on scare-mongering). He was replaced, in an internal Labor Party coup, by Julia Gillard, the current PM. There was an election in July last year that resulted in a hung Parliament. Gillard runs a government with a very, very slender majority which is dependent on the support of the Greens (who have been eating away at the Labor Party's vote for a decade or so).

Gillard is worried about losing votes to the Greens, so has been slagging them off as “not understanding family values” (this is completely unrelated, of course, to the fact that Greens leader Bob Brown is gay).

Tony Abbott had the best comment on this “if they're so extreme, why are you in coalition with them?”

The Greens take the balance of power in the Australian Senate (which is not at all like the House of Lords) in July.

Why do I tell you this soap opera? Well, partly because it's a soap opera. And to make the point thatthe politics of climate change in Australia have already toppled two party leaders. As I write this, the media is reporting that Turnbull has criticised Abbott's climate policies publicly. (Abbott's policies, so-called “direct action” amount to faith in technology and government subsidies for polluters, with households bearing the cost!)

Business as Usual

Meanwhile, business lobbies are split, as they are in the rest of the developed world. The most exposed sectors (the so-called “emissions-intensive trade-exposed” industries) are muttering about lost jobs and moving their businesses overseas (though they're less clear on how exactly you move a coal mine!)

Gillard is wooing the more “pro-action” sections of the Business Council of Australia (the Australian equivalent of the CBI) and asking them to speak up for her scheme

The Australian media is not doing a great job in reporting this, to put it mildly. The business press (I'm thinking specifically of the Australian Financial Review) is noticeably more partisan than the UK Financial Times which, while unabashedly pro-capitalist, eschews ideology-drench opinion dressed as news). The Murdoch press (The Australian, the (Melbourne) Sun-Herald, the (Sydney) Telegraph, the Adelaide Advertiser to name but the most embarrassing) is full of scare stories and denialist memes (which sits oddly with Newscorp’s proud boast of its carbon neutral status, and James Murdoch's much vaunted conviction that climate action is essential).

The main attention of political economic and media elites is at the moment focussed on the carbon tax, specifically on what price per tonne it would start at. (Analyses by the pro-renewables thinktank “Beyond Zero Emissions” and the Climate Institute agree that a carbon price of anything less than 50 to 70 dollars a tonne would see at best a shift from coal to (“cleaner”) gas-fired power stations). A shift to 100% renewable energy in the next ten years is, according to BZE, both technologically and financially possible. But given the current parlous state of the climate movement in Australia, it does not seem politically possible.

Climate Movement soul-searching

The "treetops' climate outfits have banded together in a loose and issue-based coalition as the "POP Eleven" (POP standing for Price on Pollution) to push for a carbon price. There are, inevitably, tensions in that coalition, but for now they seem to be managing to keep their show on the road.

Meanwhile, the grassroots are pondering their place and their power. Two excellent pieces have recently been written by knowledgeable participants within the climate movement about the failures of climate activism. The first is by Holly Creenaune, a member of Friends of the Earth Sydney (much more radical and grassroots than the UK version).

In part she writes...

“Bad policy aside, it's the debate – or lack of it – that is the real problem. The public cannot participate in a discussion about a perfect price or the market that could work magic: the debate is inaccessible, ignores concerns about justice, and is not relevant to our daily lives. We've been stuck for decades in a media and policy vacuum of neoliberal market mechanisms and a contest over complex science. Real solutions, community voices, or the elephant in the room – our coal exports – are locked out. It suits government and industry to keep the debate on this limited terrain – but we desperately need to build a message and a movement that can reject false solutions like carbon trading, halt privatisation of energy infrastructure, and put forward new ideas.”

The second is by Anna Rose, one of the founders of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (a more mainstream lobbying outfit – sort of like “Stop Climate Chaos,” only effective.)

“But the time has come to be honest. We are failing because as a whole the Australian environment movement does not understand power, has not built power, and has failed to effectively exercise the power we have built.

"To win campaigns we have to make it harder for those in power to continue with business as usual than it is for them to give into our demands. Yet currently, it’s easier or politicians to continue with business as usual, and to give in to the demands of industry lobbyists from the coal, gas, mining, aluminium, cement and electricity generation industries — everyone, that is, except us.”

Meanwhile, the real elephant in the room, as Holly calls it, is the carbon in Australia's exports of coal (and liquified natural gas). These exports are set to expand rapidly in the coming decades. Legally, according to the UNFCCC, the emissions are the responsibility of the country that burns them. That argument is unsatisfactory to some, such as the direct action group Rising Tide Australia, which recently installed solar panels on the office of the Federal Climate Change Minister.

They're doing their best, but the issue is just not “thinkable” yet.

My predictions?

Well, with the usual caveat that their value is extremely limited, I think that, barring accidents, some sort of tax/emissions trading scheme will come into play, but with so many loopholes and get-outs as to be useless (think the European ETS in its first phase). There will not be a shift away from coal – there is too much inertia in the political and economic and cultural systems for that.

The opposition will continue to make political capital out of it, and the denialists and culture warriors will not go away until the effects of climate change are literally undeniable.

Lastly, I don't see the climate movement reflecting and innovating and creating the forms of political and social pressure and space that make any other alternatives possible. On this last point I hope I am wrong, will act as if I am wrong, and try to act so that I make myself wrong.

See also

Guy Pearse Quarry Vision

http://www.quarterlyessay.com/issue/quarry-vision-coal-climate-change-and-end-resources-boom

Club Troppo

http://clubtroppo.com.au/category/climate-change/

Larvatus Prodeo

http://larvatusprodeo.net/category/science/

Journal of Australian Political Economy issue 66 (December 2010)

http://www.jape.org/content/view/24/1/

Political picture of the day (second of two)

2011-05-25T11:00:00.010Z

I'm told this was an electricians' demonstration this weekend in Mexico. I like the fact the motorcyclist has decided that this is a situation where he doesn't need to wear his helmet... I wonder if he thinks anything is *ever* dangerous enough for one?

Political picture of the day (one of two)

2011-05-25T08:00:00.005Z

Every face in this picture is a treat, but I'm particularly keen on the school girl in the middle: she is just not impressed. Feel free to suggest captions.

Today's Misc

2011-05-24T16:26:00.000Z

Sometimes it takes 36 years to clear your name. See George Davis.
I thought Cath Elliott's piece on the rape debate was one of the more thoughtful pieces.
For all the fury Clarke-gate created we seemed to miss things like the closure of domestic violence courts.
This piece on whether feisty women in film are making the world a better place is interesting.
Hangbitch writes on sexual abstinence.
It seems Boris Johnson has not been entirely truthful about UK Uncut. Tut, tut.

The right to know shit

2011-05-24T10:15:00.000Z

I'll put something right upfront, one career opportunity I'd like to see disappear from the world has the job description 'fuck a famous person and then sell your story'. The press is a plague rat taking it's fetid filth from home to home, from brain to brain for no other purpose than it wants to sell units. If it ruins lives and destroys our culture at the same time, well it's the profit margin that matters isn't it?

Any law and any judge that gets in the way of printing the passing tittle tattle that is the bread and butter of press work has to be brought down. They have to be campaigned against because the untrammeled rights of the press have to trump things like common decency or a society that cares about the welfare of its members.

Now we have a vacuous MP joining in as an unpaid(?) lobbyist for the filth factory, using up valuable Parliamentary time to name someone everyone knew the name of already. John Hemming should step down and let someone who is interested in politics take his place in the House. Whilst Hemming took a malicious glee in naming a footballer whose privacy was protected by an injunction he could have been discussing Libya, climate change, the use we could put Obama's visit to or, God forbid, one of any number of pressing issues his constituents are facing.

No, not for Hemming the route of discussing changing legislation he appears to disagree with, he simply subverted it and in the process showed his utter contempt for the real lives of those involved.

For while there is a general issue around whether the press has the right to print anything it God damn pleases, no matter how vile and mendacious, there are also specific issues around this case which prompted the judge to grant an injunction in the first place. Hemming would have known this had he taken a moment to acquaint himself with the court judgment.

Let's pull out some salient points shall we? Do read the whole thing if you have time.

On 14 April, News Group Newspapers Ltd was represented by leading counsel, Mr Richard Spearman QC, who did not oppose the grant of an injunction over the short interval before the return date. Ms Thomas was not represented, and indeed had not been notified of the hearing, since on the evidence I was satisfied that there would otherwise have been a risk of further disclosure of private or confidential information prior to her being served with the order.
The Claimant's witness statement was to the effect that Ms Thomas had made contact with him by various text messages in March, which led him to conclude that she was at that stage thinking of selling her story, such as it was. She told him by this means that she wanted, or "needed", a payment from him of £50,000. It was against this background that he agreed (he says with some reluctance) to meet her in a hotel where he was staying in early April of this year in order to discuss her demands. Although he had no wish to meet, he eventually agreed because he was concerned that she would go to the newspapers if he refused. On that occasion, which was according to his evidence only the fourth time they had met, they were together for no more than 30 minutes. She had asked him to provide her with a signed football shirt, which he did, but he told her that he was not prepared to pay her the sum of £50,000.
The next development was that she asked to see him again, in a different hotel, a few days later (where he was also staying). He agreed with reluctance and on this occasion, as she had requested, provided her with some football tickets.
It now seems that the Claimant may well have been "set up" so that photographs could be taken of Ms Thomas going to one or other, or both, of the hotels. Although the position is not yet by any means clear, the evidence before me on 14 April appeared to suggest that Ms Thomas had arranged the hotel rendezvous in collaboration with photographers and/or journalists. He first began to "smell a rat" when she told him at the first April meeting, perhaps feigning innocence, that she had been followed and recognised when she visited the first hotel.
On 12 April, the Claimant sent Ms Thomas a message to say that he did not want any further contact with her. Then, in something of a quandary, he thought better of it and sent her a further message the following day. This was to convey to her that he might be willing to pay her some money after all. By this time, however, she made it clear that she was looking for £100,000. She later texted him to say that there was a journalist outside her house.
The evidence before the court at that point, therefore, appeared strongly to suggest that the Claimant was being blackmailed (although that is not how he put it himself). I hasten to add, as is obvious, that I cannot come to any final conclusion about it at this stage. I have to make an assessment of the situation on the limited (and untested) evidence as it now stands. (That is what is required by s.12(3) of the Human Rights Act, to which I shall return shortly.)
Ms Thomas made contact with the Claimant again on 13 April and asked him to call her. When he spoke to her, he formed the impression that she had someone with her – probably a journalist. At all events, she told him that The Sun was thinking of publishing a story to the effect that they had had an affair for some six months and that this account would be supported by photographs of her at or near the hotels where the April visits had taken place. She did not give any indication that she herself was in any way responsible for this. It is hardly likely that she would have done so, of course, if she was still hoping to extract money from the Claimant. It seems, nevertheless, that The Sun was ready to take advantage of these prearranged meetings in order to be able to put forward the claim that it was The Sun which had found him "romping with a busty Big Brother babe". This was no doubt to give the impression, which Ms Thomas herself may have fostered, that a sexual liaison between them was still continuing at the time of the two hotel rendezvous in April.
At all events, it seems probable that she had agreed at some point to contribute to the story in The Sun that was published in its issue for 14 April (i.e. prior to the hearing of the injunction application). It is thus ironic that Ms Thomas has subsequently complained of the court's supposed unfairness in according anonymity to the Claimant but not to her. She was already identified, apparently of her own volition, before any application was made to the court. It seemed to me that the Claimant was fully entitled to the protection of anonymity at the time he came before the court on the first occasion – not least for the reasons acknowledged and explained by the Court of Appeal in JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] 2 All ER 324 at [40]...
The courts are required to carry out a balancing exercise between competing Convention rights, as was always overtly acknowledged by the government prior to the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. It was, for example, explained by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, when the bill was before the House of Lords on 24 November 1997 (Hansard, HL Debates, Col.785). He said that any privacy law developed by the judges following the enactment would be a better law because they would have to balance and have regard to both Article 8 and Article 10 (as indeed has been happening over the last decade). When the statute came into effect in October 2000, it explicitly required the courts to take into account Strasbourg jurisprudence when discharging those responsibilities.
Despite this long history, it has for several years been repeatedly claimed in media reports that courts are "introducing a law of privacy by the back door". Yet the principles have long been open to scrutiny. They are readily apparent from the terms of the Human Rights Act, and indeed from the content of the European Convention itself. Furthermore, they were clearly expounded seven years ago in two decisions of the House of Lords which was, of course, at that time the highest court in this jurisdiction: Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457 and Re S (A Child) [2005] 1 AC 593.
Since those decisions were promulgated in 2004, the law has been loyally applied by the courts in a wide variety of circumstances and exhaustively explained in numerous appellate judgments. In particular, there are a number of important decisions of the Court of Appeal in addition to those I have already mentioned: see Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2006] QB 125; McKennitt v Ash [2008] QB 73; HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2008] Ch 57; Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2008] QB 103; and Murray v Express Newspapers [2009] Ch 481. This does not purport to be an exhaustive list, but it will suffice to establish beyond doubt the legal framework within which the courts are required to operate on applications of this kind. It is widely known that the House of Lords refused permission to appeal with regard to each of the last four cases I have listed. This can only, surely, have been on the basis that it was by that stage recognised that the principles were sufficiently clearly established.
The majority of cases over the last few years, in which the courts have had to apply those principles, would appear to be of the so called "kiss and tell" variety and they not infrequently involve blackmailing threats. Blackmail is, of course, a crime and in that context the courts have long afforded anonymity to those targeted as a matter of public policy. That has not hitherto been questioned. In the modern context, against the background of the Human Rights Act, it is equally clear that the courts have an obligation to afford remedies to such individuals, to discourage blackmailers and to give some protection in respect of personal or private information where there is a threat of revelation...
I have to consider whether there would be a legitimate public interest in the revelation of this particular information, in so far as it is not already in the public domain, and whether publication would contribute to "a debate of general interest", in the sense conveyed by the European Court of Human Rights in such cases as Von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1. Would it help to achieve some legitimate social purpose, such as the prevention or detection of crime? Or again, echoing the terminology of the Press Complaints Commission Code, would publication in some way prevent the public from being seriously misled?
As in so many "kiss and tell" cases, it seems to me that the answer, at stage two, is not far to seek. Indeed, it was not even argued that publication would serve the public interest...
... It has recently been re-emphasised by the Court in Strasbourg that the reporting of "tawdry allegations about an individual's private life" does not attract the robust protection under Article 10 afforded to more serious journalism. In such cases, "freedom of expression requires a more narrow interpretation": Mosley v UK (App. No. 48009/08), 10 May 2011, BAILII: [2011] ECHR 774, at [114].

So, the paper did not argue, in fact could not argue, that this story was in the public interest and the court had the concern that there was potentially evidence of a blackmail plot. Well done Hemming, you may have just publicly facilitated a blackmailer. Twat.

As Burd argues today "For everyone to make this case the cause celebre of all that is wrong with the system is misguided. There is no public interest here; this particular footballer has always been an intensely private individual; the court papers suggest less than fragrant behaviour by the woman involved who appears to have colluded with the media to try and create a story worthy of their attention; and he has never created a public persona based on his private personage.

"I couldn’t even tell you how many children he has or what his wife’s name is, such is the low profile he has given his family throughout his career. This is entirely the wrong case upon which to demonstrate that the law is an ass and to try to tease out the balance between article 10 (the right to freedom of expression) and article 8 (the right to private and family life)."

However I don't agree this is the wrong case. It is entirely the right case to show that the law is there for a good reason. Where it is used to prevent actual news getting out it needs fixing, but the row over this story shows absolutely clearly that the press are not interested in reporting the news they are only interested in salacious gossip no matter who it hurts, and no matter whether it is substantially true or not. We should have laws to prevent this kind of reporting.

It's also worth noting, as Jennie does, that this is not judges running wild inventing laws but judges making perfectly coherent decisions based on the laws that are in place. If there is something wrong with those laws let's change them, but sweet Jesus let's not change the law to allow the press the power to destroy the lives of footballers.

Right now there is a war being waged to grant the press the power to pry into any aspect of any one's life and print half truths about them for a momentary flash of titillation. Some people have leaped into the fray to enjoy sticking two fingers up to the law with a warm glow that's it's all being done in the name of high principle. I think these people have chosen the wrong side with the best of motives - but I'd like them to reconsider.

We need to challenge the power of the press in the country, not act as its outriders. Until they demonstrate a willingness to exercise that power responsibility we should be holding them to account and limitting their influence. That's my view anyway, but then again I'm sick of the lies, the blackmail, the corruption and the foul influence the press have on our political system.

Selected items

2011-05-20T14:50:00.000Z

Where are the women in rebel music?
Old news but irritating. Scottish Wind farms paid to stop producing energy.
An interesting piece by Priya Shetty on how misogynist practices prevail.
Musings of a teen Green says Clegg is shining right now. He has a point.
Notes from the Fink Club False Economy meeting by Natalie.
Paul Merton is wondering whether he's allowed to call himself working class.

Some selected links on Ken Clarke, etc.

2011-05-19T17:42:00.000Z

Top Soil is a consistently excellent blog. Today they have a post keeping it clear on date rape.
Sunny points out that getting tough on crime is a Tory trap.
The Fawcett Society on why the government must be clear on rape.
The Guardian editorial calls for Ken Clarke to stay. Well worth reading.
Unity has a really useful piece on the simple facts Clarke got wrong.
Jenny Rigg has a poll examining the issues on the whole affair.

Those Scottish Elections: the essay

2011-05-18T12:07:00.000Z

I know I'm a bit slow with this as I get the blog back on track but I thought I'd give a very quick overview of the Scottish elections. The headline, of course, was the amazing landslide for the Scottish National Party which, for those outside of Scotland, is essentially an alternative social democratic party to Labour, without the baggage of murder and government and at liberty to put political ideas independent of a Westminster agenda.

Whilst that does not mean the SNP is immune from exactly the same neo-liberal and reactionary pressures that Labour is prone to it is able to, for example, oppose trident and nuclear power or propose a tax on supermarkets in a way that Labour seem utterly unable to. Indeed I even voted SNP on the constituency ballot (where the Greens did not stand) in order to help displace the complacent Labour incumbent.

We could go into the SNP's deficiencies at length - but frankly that would be both boring and churlish in the face of their historic victory gaining a majority of seats under a system that was specifically designed to stop them doing just that.

How did they do it? Well, they certainly had a strong well-financed campaign, although I wont go as far as some to call it a work of genius. To a large extent it was achieved through the miserable state of the opposition and the ability to gain real momentum off the back of that. There were few people who voted on the 5th that had any illusion about whether the SNP would be forming the next government or not, but if we look back to January we see the polls were predicting a comfortable Labour victory... that lead was lost by Labour rather than overcome by the SNP.

Labour's campaign

Labour did so badly that they lost key Glasgow seats leaving them in a minority in the city... yes, Labour a minority in GLASGOW. Unthinkable.

Much has been made of the dismal and lacklustre Iain Gray, Labour's Scottish leader. It certainly has little to do with Ed Miliband, as he barely figured in the Scottish campaign, with the entire weight of responsibility placed on the shoulders of a man determined to do an uninspired impression of a sack of potatoes. But frankly Labour chose him so they can't be absolved of responsibility no matter how much their candidates complained of the terrible campaign.

Labour's vision for Scotland seemed to consist of refusing to think about any alternative to cuts and mandatory prison sentences for carrying a knife. I guess that combination of authoritarianism and abandonment of public services is nothing new but in a field where voters actually had an alternative non-Tory party of government it just would not wash.

I was stunned by Labour's refusal to even talk about tackling the cuts in any meaningful way. There wasn't even any hot and meaningless rhetoric, which could have gone down pretty nicely had Labour wanted to win, which I guess they didn't.

There were two turning points of note for me. Way back when Labour had the lead the SNP proposed a 'Tesco tax' on the 1% richest companies in order to offset public sector cuts. It was a good proposal universally opposed by Labour and the Coalition Parties prompting a widespread feeling that Labour et al were simply voting in the interests of their major donors.

The feeling that Labour were in the pockets of the rich was further entrenched by the fact their argument against the Tesco Tax was that this was a 'tax on jobs'. If they wanted to look identical to the Tories they were doing a fine job and I would not have been surprised if they'd come out with the 'trickle down effect' soon after. It was from that week that Labour started to flag in the polls.

The second turning point, which was far less avoidable, was when Iain Gray was confronted by anti-cuts protesters. It's a difficult situation to handle and I have *some* sympathy with Gray over this, but his choice to turn tail and hide in a sandwich shop became an overnight legend which genuinely started to define Labour's campaigning style, run away from anything difficult. People still raise this minor incident today, and it may well become Gray's legacy.

For me more symbolic of Gray's shambolic election was the less known incident from when Alex Salmond was doing a photoshoot in a supermarket, the way you do on the election trail. As the assembled press and journos directed their attention to the big man who should walk in by chance but Iain Gray. He weakly waved and then ambled off to the lavatory. It sums the man's political career up for me.

But herein lies the danger for Labour. They desperately need to do some soul searching and the temptation to blame Miliband for not doing enough or Gray for being rubbish has got to be overwhelming. However I think that would be a mistake. Labour lost because they had nothing to say, not who was delegated to not say it. Be nice to supermarkets, be frightened of independence and give more powers to the police simply did not resonate with the electorate, and why would it? Why not turn to a Scottish party that had been careful to play down any dangerous thoughts on Scottish autonomy.

What about the Tories and Lib Dems?

Whilst the Tories did not have a great night the utter rout of the Lib Dems is the big news. All three Westminster parties saw their leaders resign in the wake of the election result which is probably inevitable but quite what Goldie or Scott were meant to do with the hand life had dealt them God alone knows. At least the Tories ran an honest and clear campaign with a leader who was happy to look the electorate in the eye and tell them 'hard truths', even if I don't think they're true.

Tavish Scott, the leader of the Lib Dems on the other hand seemed utterly flummoxed by the whole thing and given a complete absence of anything useful to say seemed to drift as much as Labour. He tried to distance himself from the national Coalition but without any meaningful policy difference this just looked shifty and dishonest.

The flagship policy of the Scottish Lib Dems was even worse than Labour's lock up those carrying knives. It was opposition to merging Scottish police forces. The majority of the electorate probably didn't even know there wasn't a single Scottish police force, let alone felt particular concerned about whether it was merged. It was totemic of their campaign that they chose as their lead campaigning issue an obscure piece of admin.

The only other significant campaign issue raised from the yellow team was on refinancing the debt of Scottish Water. As the only newsworthy economic issue they raised it was both complicated and reeked of privatisation. However the main problem with it was for a party that justifies drastic cuts in public services on the basis that we're in too much debt suggesting we get into more debt seems just the tiniest bit incoherent and, well, opportunist.

Not for the first time I was left thinking that even Lib Dem members deserve a better leadership than this. My local constituency candidate Alex Cole-Hamilton could not have campaigned harder if he'd hired an army of clones to go door knocking with him. The man was a Stakonovite of historic proportions in a campaign he must have known that he'd be crushed in. I genuinely feel very sorry for the guy. I must be going soft in my dotage.

Alison Johnstone and Patrick Harvie launch the Manifesto

And then there's the Greens

The polls consistently put the Green Party on between six and eight MSPs which always seemed a touch fanciful to me - although I had hoped for an increase. In the end it was not to be, the increase in the Scottish Green Party vote was not enough to see the SGP do more than hold onto their seats (with only the Highlands and Islands seat close to an extra win, being just a few hundred votes away from electing Eleanor Scott).

Personally I think for a small party to get noticed enough and taken seriously enough to maintain their seats whilst all other parties were swept before the tartan steamroller is actually an impressive result. Increasing our vote under these circumstances was a real achievement, but many were understandably disappointed.

With a strong media campaign and good professional approach to the campaign many members felt that this was the best SGP campaign that they could remember, although whether they'd all characterise our message as hard-left as the Scotsman did is debatable.

Certainly the Party focused on raising revenue to protect services and jobs. This gave our candidates something unique to say on hustings and in the press quite distinct from the other parties in Holyrood. It was good that the press focused on our economic policies, showing we were being taken seriously, and to my mind it is this reason that we were able to hold our ground - but in the future we need to ensure we have strong enough ground campaigns to deliver more MSPs in difficult elections as well as when the wind is going in our direction.

The others

The hard-left parties saw no resurgence in their fortunes and are sadly a shadow of their former selves. I saw one SSP candidate describe the idea of a rainbow Parliament at a hustings and to be honest that's what I would like to see, a real diversity of opinion represented (although not at the cost of the Greens, obviously!).

I was pleased that the Scottish Socialist Party polled almost three times higher than the morally bankrupt Solidarity and I hope that means they will be able to play a useful role in Scottish politics in the future. Sadly they did not out poll the Socialist Labour Party, a non-existent party who gain almost all of their votes from people who vote for them by mistake instead of the Scottish Labour Party.

Even though I love him dearly, I was also pleased that George Galloway was a long way off winning a seat in Glasgow. To be honest he doesn't live in Scotland, knows nothing about how Holyrood works, nor does he seem particularly interested in it. He's not qualified and the electorate knew it.

His hyperbolic intervention in the growing football tensions were particular unwelcome I thought and I'd far rather see a more thoughtful socialist like Colin Fox in place as an MSP than a walking megaphone like Galloway.

The far-right continue to be a non-existent force in Scotland and political Christianity, which tends to focus on the hell fire stuff rather than the love one another business, continued to languish at 0.1%. Maybe if they focused on the hugging more than the smiting they might poll a little better, who knows?

When the dust cleared it was clear we are in a new situation with the prospect of independence on the cards and Holyrood's first majority rule. I'm really pleased for Patrick and Alison, our two Green MSPs, and disappointed for those excellent candidates who didn't make it - but elected or no there are still important issues to be campaigning on and I think we're in a good position to do that.

New blogs

2011-05-18T09:01:00.000Z

I've not welcomed any new blogs recently (even if they aren't always technically 'new' except to me);

Young and Well Red is a new member of the Greens in Plymouth. He explains his decision to join here.
Dorky Mum is an Edinburgh green who writes about all sorts.
Marxist-Lentilist has to win a prize for best blog name.
Awkward Ed Miliband Moments is a lovely, lovely photoblog.
Politics, poetry and equality is a newish blog who I hope will soon get into the swing of things.
As is Green Politics Sustainable Futures and Hearts and Mines.

If you're blogging and you think I haven't 'noticed' you yet, feel free to leave a comment to let me know.

Selected good news items

2011-05-17T19:02:00.000Z

It's been a while - so let's catch up with some good news;

Ali Dizaei has been released from prison. I've been following his case for some time and am convinced Mr Dizaei has been the victim of a systematic injustice at the hands of his former employer, the Metropolitan Police. I couldn't be happier although I have little hope those responible will be brought to book.
Six other men have been released from jail because they were, well, innocent. They've been locked up since September for plotting to kill the Pope, even though they didn't.
Alisdair Thompson who was arrested on a UKUncut demonstration in Edinburgh is out of pokey and safe and well. His crime. Carrying a banner. No, really.
The Indian elections have seen a big movement forward in terms of women's representation.
At least someone has some sense over Madeline McCann. Jenny Jones talks sense.
Credit where it's due the government has done something good by preventing vulture funds using UK courts against developing world countries.

Top YES to AV votes... notice anything?

2011-05-11T18:16:00.000Z

Here are the ten areas with the strongest YES to AV vote... notice anything about them?

Hackney	60.68%
Glasgow Kelvin	58.78%
Islington	56.92%
Haringey	56.62%
Lambeth	54.69%
Cambridge	54.32%
Oxford	54.11%
Southwark	52.73%
Camden	51.4%
Edinburgh Central	51.36%

Well, I'll give you a hint... the Lib Dem and Labour vote are pretty variable across these ten, urban areas. Hackney is a strong Labour seat, Glasgow has just been rocked by the SNP and Cambridge is Lib Dem, for example.

However, they are all areas where the Greens either have councillors or, in the case of London, had councillors until the dual general election /council election last year.

Interesting... just to note I think this is about demographics not the spectacularness of the Green Party's contribution to the YES campaign which was vigorous in places like Camden and Islington and almost non-existent in Edinburgh and Glasgow as there were other things on our minds!

Holyrood two sworn in and official

2011-05-11T13:53:00.000Z

This morning I attended the swearing in of the two new Green MSPs at Holyrood. The experienced and battle hardened Patrick Harvie (Glasgow, pictured) and the fresh faced and bushy-tailed Alison Johnstone (Lothians). I will admit to *almost* crying but swear to all mighty Jehoshaphat that not one drop of saline solution touched my manly cheek.

LPW has an interesting piece on the role these rituals play in society and comments that one of the most interesting things for him is spotting the embarrassing middle names. For me the high point of the proceedings was when the Proclaimers walked onto the balcony to watch the show. I may have let out the subtlest of squeals of delight. But no one noticed, it's ok.

Marco Biagi, SNP candidate for Edinburgh Central, looked super cool as he took the oath in Italian (the first to do so perhaps?) and the mighty Alex rounded off one session of swearing ins by literally throwing a flower up into the expectant balcony - how's that for a curtain call?

Sadly no one had anything written on the their hands or made any ultra-embarrassing pre-oath remarks although Labour's Neil Findley prefaced his oath with a statement that his loyalty was to the people of Scotland and was taking the formal oath as a legal requirement not a binding pact with the Queen. I rather liked that.

Anyway, it was all very reminiscent of a graduation ceremony with family and friends dressed up to the nines to watch their loved ones receive their little certificate they'd been working for all these years. I'm not generally a fan of these formalised moments, but I was keen to attend today and was glad I did, it feels like a nice rounding off of my Scottish adventure.

Guest Post: How close were the Scottish Greens to more MSPs?

2011-05-08T16:39:00.000Z

Jeff from Better Nation kindly consented to write a guest post on how close the Greens were in Scotland to getting more MSPs. I think the facts, as presented here, are useful if a little depressing.

My shared home blog Better Nation is regularly pinned as a 'Green blog', something that I am certainly comfortable with and I know that my fellow Editors there were bummed at the lack of a surge in Patrick Harvie's bloc of MSPs, as I was.

As only a member of the GPEW, it's not really my place to say where, if anywhere, the Scottish Greens went wrong in this campaign, they were after all the only party other than the SNP to increase their share of the vote. So, I decided to take a dispassionate look at each of the regions and see where the Greens might have fared better with a few more votes or, perhaps, constituencies falling elsewhere.

CENTRAL (0 Green MSPs)

The SNP took the 7th regional spot here, winning its third list MSP.

The Greens were 6,395 votes away from taking that 7th regional spot and were behind Labour, the Tories, the SNP and even the Senior Citizens Party. Put another way, the Greens were miles off winning a seat in Central and it was never a likely place for a gain.

GLASGOW (1 Green MSP)

I had tipped this to be a potential region where the Greens could have picked up two spots but, alas, it wasn't to be. In what will prove to be something of a theme, it was the SNP who took the 7th spot here, their 3rd regional MSP on top of the 5 FPTP victories. Patrick Harvie took the 3rd ranking spot and the Greens were 3,193 votes away from getting a second, behind both Labour and the SNP but, interestingly, not behind the Lib Dems as the Greens successfully managed to poll more than double the yellows in Glasgow.

Changing the constituency wins between Labour and the SNP doesn't make it more likely for the Greens to get any closer either. Indeed, making Labour win every constituency would mean the SNP would take the first six ranking spots and Patrick would take the seventh.

HIGHLANDS & ISLANDS (0 Green MSPs)

Yes, you guessed it, the SNP took the 7th regional spot here too but the Green candidate, co-convener Eleanor Scott, was a slender 877 votes behind the SNP and 494 votes behind Labour in the race for that 7th spot.

If the SNP had won one of Orkney or Shetland then the Greens would have moved ahead of the SNP in the pecking order by 108 votes. Changing the Labour and SNP constituency seats does not have an impact
as any FPTP win is automatically replaced with another list seat with no impact on the calculations for that 7th spot.

This was as close as the Greens came to getting that 3rd MSP.

LOTHIANS (1 Green MSP)

Edinburgh has always been a happy hunting ground for the Greens and it was unclear to what extent that was a personal vote for Robin Harper. However, Alison Johnstone was returned easily enough this time around
despite the threat of Margo Macdonald hoovering up much of the non-mainstream vote. Alison won her seat in Round 4 of the d'hondt allocations.

The Greens were 5,757 votes away from the Conservatives who took the 7th seat in this region but were also 4,835 votes behind the Lib Dems, 3,356 votes behind Labour and 1,575 votes behind the SNP so they
really weren't getting a look in. The Lib Dems or Conservatives winning a seat here and there might have helped but in truth the SNP and Labour vote share were just too high again with the Greens falling short.

MID SCOTLAND & FIFE (0 Green MSPs)

The SNP took the 7th regional spot here, winning their only regional MSP with it too. The Greens were 2,008 votes away from taking it. Again, changing the constituency wins would have no impact here as
seats won/lost by the SNP are just replaced on the list.

NORTH EAST (0 Green MSPs)

Similar story to MSF, the SNP took their only regional MSP on the 7th allocation. The Greens were 2,388 votes short and were also behind the Tories and Labour in the queue to take an MSP. Very unfortunate to not see Dr Martin Ford at Holyrood.

SOUTH (0 Green MSPs)

The SNP again took the 7th regional spot here and the Greens were 5,627 votes short (from a total number of votes won of 8,656). The Greens were also behind Labour and the Tories in the fight for that seat so were always outsiders to win a seat in this region.

WEST (0 Green MSPs)

Labour finally take a 7th regional spot, pipping the SNP by only 185 votes. The Greens were 4,804 votes short.

So, all in all, depressing reading and it will be a painful review that the Green party will have to embark on in order to understand how a radical alternative manifesto and a collapsing Lib Dem vote did not deliver gains. It is a shame that there is not even any real opportunity of analysis on switching constituency wins to see to what
extent that may have helped the Greens win, they simply didn't have enough votes to be in the hunt.

The simple problem was that the SNP took far too much of the vote.

Under a true PR system, the Greens with their 4.4% national vote share would have been entitled to 6 MSPs, thrice what they have now. But sadly there is effectively a 6.67% de minimis limit as there are typically 16 MSP slots available in each region.

My only advice to the Greens, albeit hollow as they appear to be doing it already, is to be the main line of defence against local decisions that go against the party's ethos. From Aberdeen parks through Edinburgh trams to Glasgow University cuts, the Greens were there but regional strategies to compliment a national strategy is, for me, the way ahead.

One final thought, because I'm nothing if not ornery - Patrick Harvie said he didn't go into Politics to sit in a group of two, and yet that is what he shall be doing for the next five years. Will those words come back to haunt him? I do hope that Patrick continues to value his place in the Parliament even if he doesn't have the numbers he has been wishing for. Scotland needs a strong, vibrant Green party, even if the nation doesn't always realise it at election time!

Six Simple Lessons From the AV referendum

2011-05-08T16:25:00.000Z

Now the dust is settling I thought I'd quickly summarise the lessons from the AV campaign for the next referendum (!). As always in politics there are things we can influence and things we cannot, but we have to take it all into account.

Ask the right question:

The last time we had a referendum in this country it was on a burning question that the public cared passionately about. This time we had a referendum on something that most of the public didn't even know existed before the campaign began.

If you have to explain what your campaigning for, before you explain why, you've already started at a disadvantage. It gave the no campaign the opportunity to just shake their heads and say 'this all looks terribly complicated'.
Context:

There's no denying it but many people voted no in order to punish the Lib Dems. As many Lib Dems are beginning to understand there is no anti-coalition vote, but an anti-Lib Dem vote. The referendum was inextricably bound up with the Liberal Democrats and as the election results show their brand is now thoroughly toxic, contaminating anything it touches.

The campaign, which was largely run by the Lib Dems, looked, felt, smelt and tasted Lib Dem even down to dodgy statistics and hectoring insistence that people HAD to vote for AV. This was a massive mistake allowing the Lib Dems to run the campaign who were responsible for setting the utterly mistaken tone, but then again who else wanted it?
Win over the opposition don't entrench them:

Much time and effort was spent in the yes camp attempting to win people to the idea that AV would exclude the Tories from government. That's a bad reason to vote for AV as it a) ties a permanent change to temporary political conditions and b) hardly sounds like a more democratic system if it's designed to exclude a large, significant party.

Strategically it was a disaster though. Whilst the no campaign successful managed to persuade large numbers of Labour supporters to vote no, the yes campaign effectively spent time and energy convincing Tories that it was not in their interests to vote yes. You cannot win a majority whilst going out of your way to ensure that one in three voters will definitely vote against you.
Focus on the public not your rivals:

YouGov asked was the no campaign dishonest?
For the last months you couldn't turn around for seeing a yes campaigner miserably slagging off the no campaign. Over and over again we were subjected to bitching about how negative the no campaign were, while the no campaign focused on it's simple message that if you win the most votes you should win the seat.

YouGov asked was the yes campaign honest?
Instead of focusing on why the electorate were going to vote no the yes campaign focused on the argument that the no campaigners were horrid. Having associated no voters with nasty bugbear Nick Griffin, winner of the most Parliamentary seats David Cameron and the living dead, no voters tired of being insulted and rejected the yes campaign.
It's a political argument not a technical one:

When yes campaigners threatened to use ASA or the courts or the electoral commission to get their way they inadvertently sent out the message that they couldn't win the political argument. Instead of making the positive case for a change that many of them never asked for they focused on whether the no campaign were right on the cost of the change, the fact the no campaign had more financial backing and legal manouvers.

People don't warm to campaigners who try to use the courts to silence their opponents, and they care even less for those who unsuccessfully try to do so.
Make your case:

Despite protestations to the contrary the NO campaign made their case. It was simple and effective and took one or two sentences to articulate. The YES campaign, when they took time off from slating their opponents, made a meal out of explaining AV and tended towards a series of unsupported assertions (like AV dealing with overblown expenses or that the system would make MPs work harder).

A large proportion of the public were left unconvinced that they understood the case for AV, let alone whether they agreed with it or not. That time spent threatening the rival campaign with legal action could have been more usefully employed talking to the public about why this reform no one had been asking for was the right reform to adopt.

The NO campaign organisers were not geniuses nor paragons of virtue, I believe they could have been beaten. Certainly there were sincere campaigners who argued honestly and effectively, but they were let down by their leadership. Both sides deserved better and the nation deserved a higher level of discussion during our second ever UK wide referendum.

Most of all we deserved a referendum on a reform that millions have actually been calling for and that the public understand. The fight for proportional representation goes on but thankfully AV is now off the agenda for a generation.

Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for the Lib Dems

2011-05-05T16:52:00.000Z

Remember kids the Lib Dems don't care whether you vote yes or no in today's elections, they only care how many of their colleagues fail to get elected. The best way to punish the Lib Dems in Scotland is to ensure they come in fifth behind the Greens.

However, one question that will be much discussed in the coming days as the Lib Dem stretcher bearers take away the remains of their fallen comrades is... will Nick Clegg, the most hated political leader in the UK, resign as leader of his party?

Well, the answer is no, because his sort never go quietly - but the New Statesman does have a very handy pull out section from the Lib Dem rules on how to get rid of the leader. The important section is as follows;

"(e) a vote of no confidence in the Leader being passed by a majority of all
Members of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons;

"(f) the receipt by the President of a requisition submitted by at least 75 Local
Parties (including for this purpose, the Specified Associated Organisation or
Organisations representing youth and/or students) following the decision of a
quorate general meeting; "

Well, (e) seems very unlikely but I wonder about (f)... after an election that's more than bruising up and down the country the question is will the yellow grassroots continue to put up with Clegg's leadership?

It's unlikely that anything can save the party from its inevitable destruction now, despite the resilience of the activists in a very hostile political environment. They do still have a choice though. Go out with honour, by their own hand, or be suffocated in the night, unnoticed and despised.

Election countdown: a random round-up

2011-05-05T12:47:00.002Z

Just a few interesting bits and bobs from the Scottish elections today.

A Labour MP has been issuing leaflets saying that the "Tories bite off babies' heads". Possibly a bit too much in the genteel world of Scottish politics. Although Labour had no comment the publisher said "I apologise if it has damaged the Tories' chances of winning a seat in the south of Glasgow". Cheeky beggar.

Someone highlighted this piece of feminist cultural analysis the smurfette principle about the tokenism of cartoons that have a load of men and one woman who is essentially a servant (Madame Cholet and Smurfette we're looking at you). It wasn't long before some wag had to mention the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon... oh dear.

For Greens in Scotland a little talked about problem is how to vote on the constituency list, as the Greens are only standing on the regional, proportional representation list. I'm bound to secrecy as to how I used my vote (well, until 10 pm) but others have opted to spoil theirs.

From Transform Scotland

Adam at Bright Green has a round-up of how to vote in the devolved assemblies and parliaments.
Patrick Harvie has the honour of blogging at Better Nation who have been phenomenal during the election. If there was a gold star award for Holyrood blogging Better Nation, and Jeff in particular, would win it hands down (read the predictions of Malc and Jeff for last minute pointless but fascinating speculation that look good for the Greens).
My predictions? Pretty boring really... SNP victory, Lib Dems do badly, Greens increase our representation. I don't think there's going to be much off beam today. I think Galloway is very unlikely to be elected, it's possible Margo MacDonald does not retain her seat, but thoughts of Iain Gray losing his personal seat or a breakthrough for a party not represented in Holyrood last time are nothing more than wishful thinking in my view. We'll see soon enough!
Ideas of Civilisation has an interesting post on the downside of winning the Holyrood election.
And not to forget They owe us a living on education, LPW on 'the trump', Bella Calendonia's thoughtful piece on liminal moments

When are the results in?

AV results in: between 8pm and 10pm on Friday and will be announced regionally.
English Council election result in: through the night starting at 11.30 am and into Friday. Some councils will only *start* counting on Friday.
Leiceister South by-election: Friday evening.
Welsh Assembly results in: should be done by Friday 'breakfast'.
N. Ireland results in: the results will be declared by 5pm Saturday (!)
Holyrood results in: from 2.30am we'll start to see constituency results, from 6am we'll see the first list results full results.

Last thoughts on AV and Nick Griffin

2011-05-05T11:47:00.000Z

Although the unofficial YES to AV campaign has improved the quality of argument in the last couple of weeks, allowing me to warm to the idea of a YES vote somewhat (see Gary, Nan, Alan, Luke and Matt) the "You can't vote the same way as Nick Griffin" argument still persists despite being a) extremely insulting to label most of the nation fascists if they don't agree with you on AV and b) being a way of giving this figure of little public significance a central role in the election.

Child killer Jon Venables is voting YES today because he thinks it will boost the chances of the far right winning seats, but you wont see anyone telling YES people they must agree with a Nazi child killer though will you? No. Because it's a facile argument based on fear and loathing not political analysis.

Grown ups will be voting YES or NO today based on which system they prefer. However there have been some serious attempts to bully people into voting one way or the other or just appeal to people on tribal grounds.

Some Labour MPs have been arguing that there would be slightly less Labour MPs under AV (which is actually not a permanent fact, despite the case that it would have been true at the last election). That's not a great reason to postpone democracy though, is it? Nor is it an argument that's likely to persuade people who don't care how many MPs Labour has.

Likewise other Labour MPs have been arguing that people should vote YES because David Cameron is voting NO. As poor arguments go this has to be one of the worst. If the YES campaign wants to win the referendum it *has to* have a large proportion of Tory voters vote YES, but instead of trying to split away Tory voters from the official line it has actually spent time trying to cement them to their leader by touting the argument that YES to AV is an anti-Tory vote.

Seeing as the Tories won more votes than any other party at the last election that's a big demographic to deliberately alienate.While supporters of Greens, Lib Dems and Labour (marginally) will have a majority of YES voters the massive weight of NO votes from the Tories will almost certainly deliver a defeat for the referendum.It's not even true to say that AV is anti-Tory as AV in Australia has served the right very well indeed delivering a sterile two party system.

Whether the lessons will have been learned about how half measures can fail where real reform might have succeeded I don't know. I certainly do hope that the lesson that you don't put Lib Dems in charge of political campaigns has been learned as the insufferable whining, hectoring and dishonesty coming from the official YES campaign has done much to set back the chances of a YES vote.

Some notes from other places: Green Christian on how AV might effect politics, Stumbling and Mumbling on where AV could lead, Deborah Orr on how the Lib Dems are dolts, Left Foot Forward has a newspaper roundup and Tom Clark compares reform to playing cards.

Holyrood Election Advent: Today's the day!

2011-05-05T07:00:00.002Z

Holyrood Election Advent: One day to go

2011-05-04T07:00:00.000Z

A few highlights from the Scottish election

2011-05-03T16:59:00.000Z

I thought I'd round up a few of the interesting things (well, interesting to me) that have been happening in the Scottish elections.

Robin Harper, Steen Parish and an owl

In the office sweep stake I'm going to need us to get nine MSPs to win the kitty. I'm ever the optimist but that might be taking it a little too far... even if STV seem to think it's possible.

This week the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) has donated £500 to the campaign to get Patrick Harvie elected in Glasgow.

John Duffy, Scottish Secretary of the FBU, said: "Patrick has consistently recognised the importance of the fire and rescue service throughout the last session of Parliament. He is also very aware of the value of high quality public services and we look forward to working with him to protect those services over the coming years."
I was tickled by one restaurant's menufesto voting which includes an explanation of AV and a potentially controversial fish dish chosen by the local Green candidate.
As the years go on I'm becoming ever more skeptical that any election rules are actually enforced. However local Lib Dem candidate Pringle has been forced to pulp his leaflets over accidentally describing himself as an MSP even though, technically, he ceased to be one a few weeks ago. Despite his Lib Dem status I rather pity the guy.
Red under the bed explains why he'll be voting Green this time.
There haven't been many shenanigans this election, but this twitter hoax against Labour was disgraceful, and rather funny.
Better Nation has been indispensable to any election geek this election but Jeff's post on how the constituency votes fit with the regional list votes is glorious. It's extraordinary but under the current system votes in the PR list often do not end up electing anyone from a major party at all. In these areas your vote is often best placed for the Greens who will make full use of it!

This table, produced by Jeff, shows the previous elections and the regions where parties did not get anyone elected on the list ballot paper.
My predictions for the election are pretty pedestrian - crash and burn for the Lib Dems, a slight increase for the Tories and a slump for Labour as their votes flow to the SNP. I'm not making any predictions for the Greens though... that way lies madness.

Most of the election I've been tucked away in a darkened room but I did get out the other day only to see Alex Salmond get off a London train with two handlers both of whom were struggling under tons of bags as the big man strode joyfully unburdened through the station. Ah, the privileges of power.

Congratulations to Elizabeth May, Canada's first Green MP

2011-05-03T08:19:00.001Z

Elizabeth May, the leader of the Canadian Greens has won their first ever Parliamentary seat defeating a long-standing cabinet minister.

Having run an innovative campaign, including a series of attack ads against attack ads, and running a ruthlessly targeted strategy. May won an incredible 47% of the vote beating her opponent by a full 13%.

Accepting victory she said "I stand here today as the first elected Green member of Parliament in Canadian history... I remain committed, as I've been throughout this campaign, to rejecting the politics of cynicism of fear, to embracing hope and to bringing respect back to our House of Commons."

It was a night of decapitations as Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe both lost their seats. In fact the Liberals lost half their seats and Bloc Quebecois were obliterated going from 49 seats t the last election to just four.

The headline of the night, of course, is that the Conservatives won an overall majority and it was a historic night for the centre left New Democratic Party which won 103 seats and over 30% of the vote despite never having had more than 43 seats since it started running in elections from 1962.

So, although not quite good news all round, there will be at least three sets of party faithful quaffing champagne until the early hours and beyond - best wishes and love to the Green Party who've had a long hard struggle to get their under First Past the Post.

Update: thought people would like to see the percentages and seats (this is all conducted under First Past the Post). Another good argument for proportional representation (from here);

Holyrood Election Advent: Two days to go

2011-05-03T07:00:00.000Z

Guest Post: Why People In Favour of PR should vote YES

2011-05-02T22:03:00.000Z

This is a guest post from Cory Hazelhurst who blogs at the rather excellent Paperback Rioter. He's trying to persuade me to be less ambivalent without realising that ambivalence... well, that's my thing. Good luck to him anyway.

No2AV Yes2PR was launched by David Owen some months ago. Originally the Yes campaign decided not to challenge their arguments at all. This was decided, as I understand it, for two reasons.Firstly, it seemed like a small irrelevance at the time. Secondly, launching this group undermined all the arguments that the No camp were making: that AV would lead to more coalitions, that we need to keep FPTP etc.

Ultimately not challenging this argument has been a mistake (one of many) from the Yes campaign. It's led to many people who want electoral reform either voting No or, like Jim, have been very ambivalent about AV because it's not a proportional system.

Jim has very generously allowed me to write a piece explaining why people in favour of PR should vote Yes on Thursday.

The main argument I've heard against voting Yes on Thursday is that a Yes vote would be a roadblock to further reform. If anything, the opposite is the case.

For evidence that AV could lead to more electoral reform, people need look no further than the Political Studies Association briefing paper on the Alternative Vote. It was compiled by Dr Alan Renwick with the help of many leading political scientists, including Professors John Curtice, Simon Hix and Pippa Norris.
This is what the PSA has to say on the subject:

“It is clear that changing the electoral system is easier where change has already recently happened: the idea of reform is no longer so radical; more people are familiar with the reform options; there are fewer interests vested in the status quo. Four established democracies – France, Italy, Japan, and New Zealand – have introduced major reforms to their national electoral systems in the last thirty years. Two of these – France and Italy have subsequently instituted further major reforms, while Japan passed a further smaller reform, and New Zealand will hold a referendum creating the possibility of another major reform later this year. (p21)”

After changing the voting system in 1991, Italy changed it again two years later and again in 2005. New Zealand held a referendum to change from First Past the Post in 1992, and is holding another referendum asking voters whether they want to change the system later this year.

To say, then, that AV would be a roadblock for reform is completely missing the point. It would actually be a small but significant step towards reform in the future, and make future reform much more likely than a No vote.

Another argument I've heard on the blogosphere is that AV would hold up reform because it makes it harder to change to a proportional system:

“Truly proportional systems such as that Mixed Member, Largest Remainder or D’hont system, simply ask people to express a party preference and then use centrally controlled party lists and / or second tear ‘top-up’ constituencies to allocate seats to parties on a proportional basis. By allowing voters to rank individual candidates AV is actually a step away from these kinds of system.”

This isn't quite right though. AV would be a small but logical step towards something like Single Transferable Vote. After all, AV is STV for single member constituencies. Another logical step would be to lead to something like AV+, as recommended by the Jenkins Commission. This would be a hybrid of a list top-up system and MPs elected by, you guessed it, the Alternative Vote. So AV would still be a step forward to getting any proportional system.

I'm of the view that people should vote Yes simply because AV is a better system. However, even if you would prefer a more radical change than AV, vote Yes on Thursday, because that's the only way you're going to get it.

Current Scottish Polls

2011-05-02T11:57:00.000Z

Yesterday's Scotsman has published this latest poll from YouGov. Obviously we'll have to wait for Friday to find out how close their seat project is to reality. Poll

Constituency vote

SNP: 42%
Lab: 34%
Con: 12%
Lib: 7%

Regional vote

SNP: 35%
Lab: 33%
Con: 12%
Grn: 7%
Lib: 6%

Seat projection for

SNP: 54
Lab: 47
Con: 14
Grn: 8
Lib: 5

Holyrood Election Advent: Three days to go

2011-05-02T07:00:00.002Z

Holyrood Election Advent: Four days to go

2011-05-01T07:00:00.002Z

Guest Post: Steven Agnew on the Green election campaign in the North of Ireland

2011-04-30T08:50:00.000Z

Steven Agnew, leader of the Greens in the North of Ireland kindly sent me this on the shape of the election campaign there, the Green New Deal and prospects for the future.

The Green Party recognises that in these harsh financial times what we need is Economy for People and Planet.

Resources are stretched and we have to prioritise spending on areas that meet a number of policy objectives. There is no sense in squandering money on projects that may be good economically but environmentally damaging.

Equally we should not be pushing environmental policies that are not good for people. The Green Party benchmarks all its policies on whether they are good for the economy, good for people and good for the environment. We believe government should be doing the same.

In the last Assembly with one MLA the Green Party was able to get cross party support for the ambitious Green New Deal programme. If fully implemented the Green New Deal will provide thousands of jobs while helping to tackle fuel poverty and combat climate change. We need a strong Green Party presence in the next Assembly to ensure the vision of the Green New Deal is realised.

To achieve this, our first objective in the next Assembly term must be to see that the current budget is scrapped and rewritten.

The Green Party opposed the cuts budget in both Westminster and in the Assembly. As it stands the Northern Ireland budget will see our public sector decimated and result in massive job losses. It is not a budget borne out of economic necessity but one that is driven by political ideology. As was clear from Peter Robinson’s speech yesterday, this budget is about slashing the public sector to make way for increased privatisation.

Public services must be provided on the basis of need, not on profitability.

This is a budget which has been supported by the DUP, Sinn Fein and the Alliance Party. The opposition that comes from the UUP and SDLP has more to do with political opportunism than from having any real alternative vision. The Green Party is the only viable alternative to the decimation of our public sector.

In this manifesto we propose that we mutualise Northern Ireland Water and put a moratorium on the building of new roads so that an extra £1.5billion would be available for front line services such as health and education and to fully fund the Green New Deal insulation scheme.

What the current budget offers is a Green New Deal pilot scheme. Why do we need a pilot when we know that invested in insulation creates jobs, reduces home heating bills and reduces carbon emissions? By insulating 500,000 homes we can provide employment for up to 15,000 people.

In the next Assembly we will oppose plans to increase fees for students that would see our young people burdened with crippling debt – this is an unacceptable price for university education which benefits our whole society. I myself have a £16,000 debt from my university days. I will not condemn the next generation of students to the burden of debts of up to £40,000.

The other parties are happy to blame Westminster for the cuts to higher education funding - we will not let them hide behind this smokescreen

We need to Invest in NI. We need to invest in our young people and in the small local businesses which are the backbone of our economy. Small businesses are being ignored by an economic policy that seeks the quick fix of Foreign Direct Investment. Other parties want to gamble with our economy. They are proposing putting £300million of our money on the corporation tax cut in the hope of landing the FDI jackpot. We entice these companies in with huge grants and the promise of cheap labour and lax environmental regulations. However they soon leave again once the money has dried up – taking their profits with them.

Instead we should be protecting the businesses we have and helping them to grow. We need to build the economy from the ground up to ensure that it is sustainable and resilient in times of global economic uncertainty.

The Green Party enters these elections in better shape than ever. Our European election result showed our vote had trebled in the space of five years. In these elections we are looking to translate that growth of support into seats in the Assembly and in local councils. We have young candidates that can bring a breath of fresh air to Northern Ireland politics and the experience and expertise of Green Parties across the globe to draw upon. While others dwell in the past it is the Green Party that has the vision for a brighter future.

Holyrood Election Advent: Five days to go

2011-04-30T07:00:00.003Z

The other Wedding stories

2011-04-29T18:00:00.008Z

Met Police issue statement which includes: "Let me make it clear. This is a day of celebration, joy and pageantry for Great Britain. Any criminals attempting to disrupt it - be that in the guise of protest or otherwise - will be met by a robust, decisive, flexible and proportionate policing response...

"We have been working closely with officers investigating recent demonstrations in London and as you are aware bail conditions have been imposed on over 60 arrested people, including that they will not be allowed to enter [central] London on the day of the wedding.

"I can also confirm that as part of the investigation into the TUC demonstration and the subsequent disorder that took place, since 18 April six people have been arrested for a range of offences. The work of the investigation team continues and as you would have seen over the last few days further images of people we would like to speak to have been released to the media."
There have been a number of 'pre-crime' arrests by the police whose powers appear to be out of control.
This includes three Republican street performers. Arrested for planning to say we should live in a modern democratic republic. Wow.
A Cambridge activist who was planning to voice dissent peacefully.
Seven arrests in Hove.
And more disturbances in Bristol around the Tesco-ification of the town.
There is a fair pay for Royal Cleaners campaign from the union PCS.
There was a not the Royal wedding street party in Red Lion Square as well as a number of similar events organised by different organisations up and down the country.
Today is also the day that a swathe of radical facebook groups have been purged from the site in one fell swoop.
Meanwhile Bright Green are crowd sourcing any bad news that might get buried today under the avalanche of Wedding ephemera.

Holyrood Election Advent: Six days to go

2011-04-29T07:00:00.000Z

Independent YES campaigners

2011-04-28T23:03:00.000Z

While the official YES campaign has been piss poor from the beginning, others inclined towards voting yes but understandably frustrated by the official campaign have begun to produce their own materials, and who can blame them?

Take this wonderful example of cat / geeking / political propaganda combo. What could be finer?

In a similar vein the coffee / beer image doing the rounds is a thousand times more convincing as an explanation than anything the yes campaign has produced, relying on that tired combo of moaning about the other side whilst talking a load of bollocks.

It really takes some chutzpah to insinuate everyone thinking of voting no was somehow a bit like Nick Griffin or that tactical voting would be abolished or that a winning candidate has to get more than 50% of the votes cast to win (which doesn't attract me anyway even if it was true, which it isn't). But let's not pretend that no campaigners have been pure as the driven snow, as this Australian blogger points out, I'm juust a bit tired of hearing yessers claim the no side are always lying without ever acknowledging the yes camp has continually made factually untrue statements.

Incidentally, I really wish that both sides would stop exclusively using examples where someone who did not come first under the first preferences wins the final round. Although the purpose of AV is to introduce exactly such a possibility it is in fact normally the first placed candidate who wins. AV doesn't actually change that much and both camps have together created an impression that the second placed candidate (or even third placed, or lower) would win quite often, which a lot of people don't like the idea of.

It's exactly the exaggerated claims on both sides that have been such a turn off, as web of evil so brilliantly satirises. There are thoughtful things to say about AV (see for example Keith Flett, Hilary Wainwright, Gowers) or simply fun and funky things to say - but the Yes campaign just didn't want to say them.

The abolition of the dire Lib Dem bar charts would be a welcome advantage of AV but the Lib Dem staffed yes to AV campaign doesn't seem keen to highlight this advantage.

Personally one of the strongest arguments for AV is the undermining of tribalism in politics. I would love to see the end of the idea that if you like one party you must want all the others to expire. Only the most tedious party zealot thinks such things. If you don't have preferences between a specific Labour, Green, SNP, Lib Dem and Tory candidate in a constituency, for example, then I suspect your brain may have been replaced by a fossil and you're little use to anyone.

A politics without such firm borders between parties would, I think, be more honest, more thoughtful and more habitable for those people without the 'my way or the highway' instinct of many career activists. AV at least encourages us to think more in shades and nuance than the black and white of the us and them. That's partly why so many Labour people will be voting no trained as they are to regard their voters as their property by right.

At the end of the day there are good reasons to vote either way, and bad ones. A vote for or against because you think it might favour your party in the next election is a pretty vacuous and unprincipled reason to choose a system that we'll be using for decades to come, just as punishing either Clegg or Cameron when both care far more about how many of their party colleagues are elected on May 5th seems a bit pointless. A vote for or against because of how shit either campaign has been is also a pretty bad reason to decide when really the choice is between two, similar, electoral systems regardless of who their advocates are.

I'm glad to see more optimistic and fun messages coming out from the yes side, particularly after that dreadful TV ad where wankers with megaphones stood and hectored people about stuff AV would do fuck all about. I'm also glad the yes campaign have stopped their damn whining about the no camp having suddenly realised that it's the electorate they need to be thinking about, not their rivals.

At least the last week of campaigning might actually throw up some more laughs and real discussion, something that had been sadly lacking in the first months of the campaign. It's a shame most people will have gone to sleep on the subject by now.

Selected items

2011-04-28T07:54:00.000Z

In the absence of any coverage of the Royal Wedding (I mean this is important! Why aren't the papers covering it?) we have some selected items from the internet;

CORRECTION: I previously said that this was the Welsh Greens election broadcast, but in fact it was a a web info-film on the how the voting works. Still lovely, but the actual broadcast is completely different. The greedy beggars have got two great election films under their belt.
Two new Green bloggers; Hearts and Mines, and Green Politics Sustainable Futures.
Monsters and Critics look at the pragmatic new German Green premier.
The end of Communism in West Bengal. From Pickled Politics.
Socialist Unity have a shocking transcript of some Lib Dem telephone canvassing.
And finally after the great union march against the cuts Martin Wicks asks where we go now?

Holyrood Election Advent: Seven days to go

2011-04-28T07:00:00.004Z

Green Policy on the monarchy

2011-04-27T20:58:00.000Z

I thought people might be interested in the official policy of the Green Party of England and Wales towards the monarchy.

No person should acquire the right to any office of government by inheritance.
The monarchy should cease to be an office of government. The legislative, executive and judicial roles of the monarch should cease.
Peers and members of the royal family should have the same civil rights and fiscal obligations as other citizens.
We think a settlement of property held by the current royal family should be made, to divide it between that required for the private life of current members of the family and that to be public property.

No guillotines it seems, just pay your taxes and get your nose out of government.

BBC on the Scottish polls

2011-04-27T07:46:00.000Z

The BBC have been explaining how the Scottish Parliament elections work here. As you can see they predict that, if current polls are correct, the Lib Dems will come a well deserved fifth. Interestingly, they appear to be saying the English Greens will achieve eight seats which is all very jolly as they are currently busy fighting local elections south of the border... the struggle to keep our broadcasters on brand continues it seems.

Note: polls may in fact be bullshit, but might not be either.

Holyrood Election Advent: Eight days to go

2011-04-27T07:00:00.004Z

Holyrood Election Advent: Nine days to go

2011-04-26T07:00:00.004Z

Holyrood Election Advent: Ten days to go

2011-04-25T07:00:00.003Z

The polls shine on the Scottish Greens

2011-04-24T14:48:00.000Z

There's always a danger that polls can mesmerise, hypnotise and discombobulatise the political class. As the saying goes, there's only one poll that counts and that's on election day. You could drive yourself mad playing with Scotland Votes, you could. However, whilst the barometer may not be the same thing as the storm they still give an indication of what's happening on the ground outside the fetid party HQs and squalor of the news rooms.

Today's Scottish polls build on the steady results the Greens have been getting throughout the election that we should be doubling or tripling our representation - which would be very welcome, if replicated on the day. In today's polls it puts the Greens on 7 MSPs, equal with the Lib Dems, which brings closer the tantalising thought that we could shove the yellow devils into fifth place.

For more on the number crunching see Jeff Breslin and LPW but Jeff reckons that today's polls would mean 62 for the SNP, 38 Labour, 14 Tory, 7 each to Greens and the Lib Dems and 1 independent.
I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch, particularly because the national vote has to be spread the right way across the regions for us to get the best possible result. We have eleven days to go and I'd be happy with any increase in MSPs, although if we were to hit, say, the magic number eight I wouldn't send any of them back for a recount.

In fact the poll shows two 'nice' things for the Greens. One that we're doing well enough to see a likely increase in representation and two that the gap between the SNP and Labour is looking unbridgeable - which means any third party squeeze shouldn't be too significant a factor on the day. Iain Gray is likely to resign as Scottish leader of the Labour Party directly after the election (shall we pencil in Monday the 9th for that?) as much of the blame for Labour's poor performance has been laid directly at his door, which is probably unfair even if understandable.

Certainly those who usually vote Labour (or Lib Dem for that matter) for leftist reasons would be making good use of their second vote by lending it to the Greens at this election without it going to waste.

The Greens are explicitly pushing progressive taxation, where we expect the greatest contribution from those most able to pay, renationalising the rail, retaining Royal Mail in public hands, a focus on affordable, warm housing including tackling fuel poverty with a large scale home-insulation scheme, investment in public services rather than cuts and we're even talking about fan ownership of football clubs. Not policies any Labour vote will get you anyway, no matter how left leaning your intention.

With Patrick Harvie still excluded from the leaders' debates (sign the petition) it's all down to the last leg of the campaign on the ground now. Certainly the feeling out on the streets is good for the Greens and we're a distinctive voice among the shades of grey that are the other parties. Let's see what we can make happen on May 5th. If you live in Scotland feel free to get involved with the Scottish Greens campaign.

Tavish faces up to the Lib Dems' Cleggacy

2011-04-22T22:37:00.000Z

For those to the south of the Scottish border you may not have heard of a gentleman by the name of Tavish Scott. He's the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats who are, it appears, heading for an inglorious drubbing at the polls this May.

Here Scott is quizzed about his party's prospects on the Scottish Newsnight, or Newsnicht as they say in these parts. Car crash TV in its purest form.

Tavish does a number of things here. First of all he tries to pretend that the Scottish Lib Dems are quite separate from their southern cousins. This despite the fact that Clegg was warmly welcomed at their recent conference and that the Lib Dem MPs returned from Scotland have an identical voting record as all the rest of them.

The same broken pledges, the same attempts to blame everyone except themselves for their own actions and the same dismal poll ratings. It simply feels incredibly dishonest to try to disown a government that Lib Dem MPs in Scotland are enthusiastic members of.

Tavish also manages to say that even their plans for Scottish Water (a plan to refinance debt for a short-term cash sum paid back with interest by the tax payer) which are the centre piece of their campaign is something that they'd ditch at a moment's notice if someone, anyone, would only go into coalition with them.

I think Lib Dem voters deserve something better than this.

In fact it's the failure to take responsibility for any policy or decision that I think is the worse thing of all here. This is exemplified by the way that the closure of A and Es is blamed on Labour, even though the Lib Dems were in coalition government with them and supported the policy at the time.

Tavish then says that although Lib Dem policy is now different, the fact that Labour have changed their policy as well is some kind of disgraceful U-turn. It's one of the most incoherent defences of a party's position I've ever seen.

Some people are thinking that a No vote in the referendum is the best way to punish the Lib Dems for their shoddy coalition. I don't agree. The best way to punish them is to make sure they are beaten by the Greens on the list vote. That is where it will really hurt the Lib Dems, lost seats round the table, after all no one really gives a damn about AV anyway.

Tescopoly goes to war with Bristol estate

2011-04-22T22:15:00.000Z

Economy tanks, replete with the trademark blue stripes, have moved into the sleepy estates of Bristol. Residents last night saw a riot unfold in front of them as aggressive police tactics against a peaceful protest escalated.

Pic h/t Bristol resident Ian Bone

A two year campaign against Tesco moving into this area of Bristol culminated this week as Tesco moved in despite the desires of residents.

It appears that heavy handed policing including the use of dogs and riot police against a peaceful protest led to injuries and arrests that need never have happened.

Three eye witnesses to what then happened are really worth reading. There's the Indymedia report, an account on Our Kingdom, and at Neuro Bonkers. It's also worth checking out Ian Bone.

The press seem remarkably reluctant to report these incidents although the local paper could hardly avoid it.

There's one group of people who can really create a riot where none was before - and that's the riot police

Further reading: Adam's facts about Tesco. Sam Allen on why the council should support the community.

Selected items

2011-04-22T00:07:00.000Z

In case you'd like the full set of Green Party election broadcasts we have Scotland, England, Wales and N. Ireland.
Alasdair Thompson looks at whether Liberty love the police a bit too much.
The Chile they are exhuming ex-President Allende.
Astonishing. London Green Fair has a Miss Earth competition.
At Obsolete they discuss mission creep and Libya.
What does the world need? Eco-friendly tanks.

Charges dropped against Tunisian policewoman

2011-04-20T18:34:00.000Z

Months ago a simple event, a common place event even, led to a series of world historic uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa. A Tunisian fruit vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, was humiliated by a policewoman. Not only did she confiscate his wares, because he supposedly did not have a permit, she also slapped him.

For Bouazizi this was not the first time the police had stopped him earning a living, nor the first time they had treated him like dirt. This time would be the last time though because Bouazizi had had enough. He took himself to the local municipal office in his small provincial town and set himself on fire. Three weeks later he died from his terrible injuries.

This extraordinary act of immolation from a man who could simply not cope any more led to snowballing protests against police corruption, unemployment, poverty and the state. So powerful did that movement become that the President himself fled the country in fear. The fruit seller took down the dictator.

Bouazizi's family had put in a complaint against the policewoman who's casual acts set in chain these vents but, according to Al Jazeera, they have now dropped the charges as "a gesture of tolerance and an effort to heal wounds suffered in Tunisia's upheaval".

It's a generous act aimed at helping the country move forwards and one that should command great respect. His family did not choose to be at the centre of a revolution but it is quiet acts like these that can help construct a better Tunisia.

The far right and May 5th

2011-04-19T10:30:00.138Z

The Labour years saw a steady increase in the vote of the far right, a rise that took the BNP to historic levels of support and unprecedented, if modest, success at the ballot box - predominately in Labour "safe" seats where the electorate had been taken for granted and ignored for years.

However, by the time our new coalition overlords came to power the BNP's momentum was well and truly broken as the organisation fell into infighting, expulsions and paranoia. Other groupings like the English Democrats and the National Front have made life extremely uncomfortable in selected areas, but as organisations are abject failures.

Sadly, this does not mean that the mood which spawned these far right organisations has disappeared. In fact the last general election saw a record vote for the BNP and with UKIP's more, cough, eccentric approach attracting many of the right's stability challenged individuals we have a movement that has been beaten organisationally but not psychologically.

Of course that doesn't stop the BNP's chief Mussolini impersonator Nick Griffin from being a bugbear used to frighten the children.

For example, the Yes to AV people have been playing heavily on the fact that Griffin opposes AV and if the black shirted devil thinks something we can't possibly agree with him. That rather ignores two obvious things.

Griffin is also for renationalising the railways and opposed the Iraq War. Are the millions of people in this country that do the same somehow capitulating to fascism? Of course not, no more than vegetarians are similar to Hitler. Griffin will hold a host of views, some political some not, that are not the defining feature of his politics. Yet somehow this political irrelevance is being used to give the moral high ground to all those who are voting Yes on May 5th.

It also ignores the fact that Nick Clegg is far more hated than Griffin (because more people actively think hate-y thoughts about him more of the time) so it might not be wise to start playing the "You can't agree with him" game. It makes no more sense to "vote Yes to oppose the BNP" than it does to "vote No to annoy Nick Clegg". Well, it actually makes less sense.

I digress. The electoral prospects for the BNP are dismal at best as they are standing fewer candidates than for years and some former strongholds have no BNP candidates at all. This is all very satisfactory and people in those areas can concentrate on averting the global catastrophe that is mainstream politics free from the distractions of goose-stepping uniform fetishists.

Of course, organisations like Hope Not Hate are working hard targeting those council wards where the BNP can be driven out once and for all. The BNP are defending eleven council seats this year, in particular in Stoke on Trent, and if fail to keep these seats that will be half their remaining councillors gone and the organisation's spirit broken for good. This is where the battle is.

It's frustrating to see in Edinburgh posters up advocating us to "vote to keep out the BNP". It's frustrating because the BNP don't have a hope in hell of winning an MSP anywhere in Scotland, nor even of coming close to winning one. This election isn't even remotely about the BNP and the only people going into the polling station thinking of the BNP will be the genuinely tiny number of people who will be voting for them.

It's also frustrating because this tactic of mobilising the vote against the far right has a real use under particular circumstances. The classic example is that of Derek Beackon, a BNP member who won their first ever council seat back in 1993, the same year Stephen Lawrence was murdered. The anti-fascist movement came out in droves to get Beackon out and the next year he was out of the council again.

However, whilst inspiring it is worth noting what, specifically, the anti-fascists achieved electorally. Leaving aside the added confidence in the area to those opposing the right, the BNP's vote actually increased from the '93 by-election to the '94 full council election where Beackon gained more than 2,000 votes in his ward (over 28%) but the Labour vote was also dramatically increased as the obvious candidate to beat the BNP.

In the context this was an incredibly useful strategy, but in areas where they have no chance of winning this tactic (which inevitably increases the far right vote) serves simply to advertise the presence of the far right in areas where they do not have the man-power to make their presence felt themselves. In other words in places like Edinburgh ignoring them in elections where they don't have a chance is the best and most effective anti-fascist tactic even though banging the drum might make you feel better and allow you to recruit to your organisation.

The only people going out of their way to let the people of Edinburgh know they can vote for a Nazi this May are the small group of anti-fascists, and the only possible result of their activities is that the BNP's impact in the area is increased. I'd also say that this tactic is less well suited to proportional representation elections (which the second vote is) anyway, because concentrating the "not fascist" vote into one party doesn't stop them getting elected.

The BNP is dying on its arse. In those remaining eleven council seats it needs to be squashed out of existence, but everywhere else the very worse thing we can do is to make out they are still a significant force in UK politics, because frankly the only thing that could save them now is if people start to believe that.

Selection Box

2011-04-18T20:00:00.001Z

In Canada the Greens have guns. Be warned.
OKCupid rejects complaint in the only way they know how - with style.
Following up on the strike school story. The head has been suspended. At last.
Climate rush have been dodging fares for the common good.
It seems that environmental protection is 'red tape'. Grrrr.
The first post of a new blog, good luck to all who sail in her: Green Politics: Sustainable Futures.

Hustings report: Edinburgh Southern

2011-04-17T22:43:00.000Z

It was a beautiful sunny day today, so what better place to spend it than in a church hall listening to politicians. Glorious. This time it was the Newington Churches Together hustings for Edinburgh Southern and we had Andrew McPake from the SSP list, Gavin Brown the Tory constituency candidate, Jim Eady the SNP constituency candidate, Margo MacDonald the respected independent, Mike Pringle, the outgoing Lib Dem MSP and Paul Godzik Labour's constituency candidate.

Alison Johnstone for the Greens (pic from here)

Oh, and Alison Johnstone for the Greens who was the best of all of them (pictured).

I'm going to be nauseatingly pleasant for a moment and say I thought they all came across well, in terms of speaking style and personability. In other words there were no 'duds' on the panel, but there was a great deal to disagree with. I wrote sporadic notes throughout but wont attempt to give a blow by blow account, just a flavour.

Alison (Greens) started off and managed to set the agenda of the initial discussion by raising the cuts, whether they are actually necessary and the amount of social harm that they will do. She praised groups like UKUncut for their sterling work against corporate tax evasion and talked about the need for tighter legislation to ensure even the richest companies and individuals have to pay their fair share of tax. As she said the private sector will not fill the jobs gap when public sector workers have been laid off.

Andrew (SSP) said how we used to have a colourful parliament. Full of different parties that represented different view points and this was good for democracy. He hoped to see a 'rainbow parliament' again, with SSP members in it. Like Alison he railed against the cuts and felt that in order to tackle tax avoidance we needed an 'independent Scotland with teeth'. We didn't need cuts but increased taxation revenue, and that was to come from the rich.

Gavin (Conservatives) listed all the money the Tories were giving to various small business schemes and market organisations. For me this came across as hand outs for businesses and we'll close your library. Later he also said that the cuts were *not* savage, but more a gentle rebalancing of the books.

Jim (SNP) was a competent speaker but lacked detail I thought. So for example he said the cuts weren't necessary but I was never sure why he thought that, unless it was his comment about using the wealth oil would bring in - which I'm pretty sure is not a sustainable model. Certainly though he came across as a steady social democrat, but I did drift off a bit when he was speaking. Sorry.

It was good to hear Margo (Independent) in the flesh as I'd heard nice things about her. I was very disappointed then when the main thrust of her opening address was on how essential the cuts were, and that they needed to be deep. She claimed that the politicians (including herself) did not understand the current situation (which I took to mean she didn't) and that we needed to get the election "over with as soon as possible". Frankly I think the date is set at May 5th and it would be a bit of a hassle to change that now.

Mike (Lib Dems) agreed with Margo about how necessary the cuts were but that his priority at this election was police numbers, and opposition to the merger of the Scottish police forces. He stated very clearly that he was against free prescription charges and opposed to a council tax freeze (at least I can agree with him on that last one).

Paul (Labour) made quite a motherhood and apple pie introduction talking about protecting jobs and "frontline" services, although he was opposed to getting extra revenue from taxation. I wondered how he was going to achieve this, well, "efficiencies" in the "backroom" (where clearly nothing useful happens because the public can't see them) and "Scottish solutions for Scottish problems". In particular he wanted further efficiency savings in the police, fire-service and health. That's all sorted then, job done, no harm to anyone.

Of the highlights of the debate I'd say there were three. First on crime. The Lib Dem and Margo MacDonald both came out against mandatory sentencing for carrying a knife and although the Labour guy tried to defend it he just sounded like someone who likes locking people up and doesn't mind if they deserved it. It was Andrew from the SSP who took it up a notch getting very impassioned about the low conviction rate for rape in Scotland and noted that it was time we thought about lowering the evidence threshold on rape. I'm not for that, but it was a strong point well made.

The Conservative, Gavin Brown, felt that we weren't sending enough people to prison and that we were letting them out too soon. I should have heckled that Ken Clarke didn't agree with him, but was too lazy.

The second was on renewable energy. Now this is an area which I think is difficult for the Greens (at a hustings). Everyone expects us to be good on this, it's our topic as it were. So if we shine - well, that's as it should be - and if the others all say they like turbines, sun and wave (as they all say they do these days) it's harder for us to be distinctive on this unless we're prepare to really hammer the record of the other parties.

So we had a few comments about how windy and wavy Scotland was and that the SNP were going to make us 100% renewable powered. Then Alison stepped in and, I think, blew the others out of the water. It's all very well arguing for new wind turbines, she argued, they're ok I suppose, but the key problem is that we're using too much energy, not simply that we're producing it in the wrong way.

If our home insulation scheme was rolled out properly (unlike the half hearted scheme the SNP proposed) it would have a phenomenal impact on our energy *needs* as well as making the poorest households warmer. Without tackling waste and reliance on oil fancy renewable technologies wont take us nearly far enough. I thought that was great, as it challenged the idea that green ideas are something you can just buy in and carry on as normal.

The last highlight (there were lots of other questions) was on what party the panelists would be a member of if they couldn't be in their own. It's a great innocent sounding question that is an incredible minefield for all the parties, but especially the Greens.

SNP Jim got in quick with his "The Margo MacDonald Party" which was promptly banned as an answer for further panelists. Then Labour, Lib Dem and the SSP candidates all said they'd be in the Greens (the SSP candidate pointing out that many members of his party had actually been expelled from Labour so might find it hard to go back).

Alison for the Greens, faced with all this love, had to do some quick thinking. She basically ran through the fact that we like some of the policies of other parties and work with them (for instance the SNP and nuclear) but would have real problems digesting some other policies (for instance SNP and road building). In the end she plumped for the Green Party of England and Wales - which in no way answers the question, well dodged that woman.

That only left the Tory who made some weird remark about Solidarity... but I don't think he was considering joining them.

Anyway, those were my impressions. I'm sticking with the Scottish Greens for the list vote, as you might expect, but you'll have to wait and find out who I vote for in the Constituency list where the Greens aren't standing.

Guest Post: Relocating London

2011-04-16T11:52:00.001Z

This is a guest post from Douglas Coker, and absolutely rock solid Green in Enfield. A great start to the discussion on what climate change means for our cities.

London is under threat. Key parts of central London are built on a flood plain. A stretch of the South Bank, including part of Southwark, and Docklands are examples. The extent and timescale of the threat are difficult to predict exactly but at some point in the future low lying parts of London run an increasing risk of being flooded.

The North Sea flood of 1953 in which thousands of lives were lost in the Low Countries and Suffolk and Essex was a warning. This prompted the building of the Thames Barrier during the 1970s. It became operational in 1982 and has been used with increased frequency over subsequent years. Currently the Barrier protects billions of pounds of infrastructure including buildings, parts of the underground network and electricity distribution facilities. Some experts expect it to be fit-for-purpose until 2030, others say 2060 or later.

Now global warming and rising sea levels are increasing the threat. Add a repeat of the 1953 event with a storm surge bringing huge volumes of water up the Thames and the Barrier failing. In addition consider this. The Thames catchment area extends as far as Basingstoke, Swindon, Banbury and Luton. Imagine exceptionally heavy rainfall in this area and the subsequent large volumes of water travelling downriver to London just as the storm surge arrives from the sea. You don’t want to be strolling along the South Bank or travelling in a tube under the Thames when this happens! OK enough scary stuff. What do we do about this?

Big cities need big infrastructure and these projects should last for hundreds of years. Take Bazalgette’s sewer system. The combination of the Thames being used as an open sewer and an unusually hot summer in 1858 gave rise to the Great Stink so awful that members of the House of Commons considered relocating upstream to Hampton Court. Joseph Bazalgette was commissioned to build a substantial London sewer system to carry the offending effluent down river. We still depend on this today in part due to Bazalgette’s deployment of the precautionary principle. He doubled the size of the sewer tunnels to future proof them. What an example he set. His sewers will have a lifetime measured in hundreds of years.

Bazalgette could not have been expected to know about global warming back in the 1850s. But we are all too aware now. Why are we continuing to construct large civil engineering projects, including infrastructure and buildings in vulnerable areas? I question whether we should be building, the Thames Gateway project, the Olympic Games site, Crossrail and the Super Sewer. Huge amount of concrete and steel will go into these projects with all their attendant CO2 emissions and all or part of these projects are in areas of London increasingly vulnerable to flooding. Projects which should last, not mere tens of years, but hundreds of years should surely not be built in areas which within 50 or maybe 100 years will be inundated with water.

The London Thames Gateway development has the insurance industry worried. They are reluctant to insure homes and shops unless extra measures are taken to protect against flooding. Maybe the buildings should be built on stilts! The Olympic Games site is in the Lea Valley an area which has experienced flooding in recent decades. Measures have been put in place to prevent flooding of the site but will they prove to be adequate?

Crossrail is intended to transport commuters at high speed from Maidenhead in the west to Stratford and Canary Wharf and other places in the east. Putting aside the question of whether this is a good idea in principle this huge civil engineering project will run through and to parts of London vulnerable to flooding at some point in the future. Whether in tunnels or on the surface how is this to be protected?

Finally the Super Sewer, or more correctly the Thames Tunnel, is intended to extend for 20 miles from west to east to help prevent sewage entering the Thames when we have increasingly heavy rain (caused by climate change) overwhelming the Victorian sewage system (built by Bazalgette). All this diverted sewage is intended to end up in a sewage works at Beckton which, situated on the north bank of the Thames estuary, is right in the firing line of a surge of flood water heading up river for London! Surely a better plan is to remove all impervious surfaces in front gardens, car parks and similar places, install soak-aways and encourage the maximum use of water-butts and other storage containers before boring a huge tunnel under the Thames.

Global warming and climate change have received less attention than warranted as we experience an economic depression. But let’s not forget the economy is a sub-set of the environment and business-as-usual thinking needs to be challenged. We should not be pursuing developments which take little if any account of the prospect of London and the Thames estuary flooding. We need a new planning regime which sets strict criteria informed by a proper understanding of the risks to London from a rise in sea-level and large volumes of water. We need to plan to give places back to the river and sea as they are ultimately not protectable.

Relocate London? We need a plan for relocating vulnerable parts of London on a timescale which will prevent foreseeable disasters.

Today's selection box

2011-04-13T23:59:00.029Z

How the ancient Romans made MSG. Yum?
It appears the number of BNP candidate numbers has plummeted, and the Lib Dems are also having trouble. Oh dear.
Australian Green Cate Faehrmann tries to learn lessons from the recent NSW elections. Hmmm.
Short video from Israelis who say they defy the ban on protest. Yes.
Just because it's a council house doesn't mean it's not yours. Right on.
Natalie at the Third Estate talks about my third favourite topic. Autonomism. Oh yeah.

The AV campaign videos

2011-04-13T19:44:00.001Z

We now have both YES and NO to AV campaign videos and frankly my unimpressedness continues unabated. First we have the No camp making their case;

I'm slightly confused about the three films in one thing from the Noers here. While three separate short films is fine, splicing them into one reel feels rather clumsy and confused - a bit like their arguments I guess.

Certainly it's funny, although the concept that people can get in even though no one votes for them or that AV would lead to permanent coalition is utter tosh. The horse race part is clear and powerful, probably the strongest part of the broadcast and is all the more robust for relying on an honest preference for first past the post rather than simply attacking AV.

Having said that the final part, which we might as well label "AV is confusing" is also a pretty strong message. It relies on the gnawing doubt in many people's subconscious that voting is complicated. I find it slightly frustrating because it essentially makes out that the voters are going to have to conduct the count themselves, so the issue becomes whether it is simple to count (and it's obviously slightly more complicated to count than FPTP) rather than whether it is simple to vote, which of course it is. In fact it might even be simpler to vote in an AV election because you don't need to predict who the winners might be before marking your X.

Now to the Yes video

Sadly we have more tosh.

AV will make your MP work harder will it? There's absolutely no evidence for this at all. More than a third of seats at the last general election were elected with more than 50% of the vote. The handful of seats that would have changed hands at the last election had it been under AV were all marginal anyway - so it's hardly likely to solve the expenses problem (which is as bizarre a claim as any the No camp are making).

However, while the arguments are as weak as the No camp's the video itself is far, far weaker. It essentially paints Yes campaigners as hectoring twats. This may well be an accurate description of the Lib Dem cadre that make up the core team of the Yes campaign (which also explains why the campaign has managed to combine smugness, bullying, pathetic whinging and a host of mis-guided missiles) but it's hardly true of the majority of pro-AV people.

There are many good arguments you can make for AV and yet the Yes camp seems determined to paint the campaign in the Lib Dems' image - self-satisfied, dishonest bores whose idea of a conversation is dogmatically insisting that they have no choice but to vote the way they want you to. I believe this may well become a classic case of crash plus burn.

Currently the No camp appears to be seven points ahead in the polls but I can't believe that support for either side is on the basis of the official campaigns.

Banning peaceful parties - whatever next in our ‘democracy’

2011-04-11T23:51:00.001Z

This a guest post from a Camden resident: Way back in January the campaigning group for an end to the British Monarchy and for ‘a democratic alternative’ started organising in earnest for a big street party for the Royal Wedding day.

It was billed as ‘providing a family friendly public space away from the hype of the Royal Wedding’ with food, games, entertainment and to celebrate democracy and people power - An alternative for those people who are not big fans of the monarchy. It seemed like a perfectly inoffensive and fun way to protest without being ‘spoil sports’

Republic supplied an event management plan to the police, and received an approval from the planning authority: Camden Council as shown here: http://bit.ly/efkqNg

And so they began publicising the event.

But there has been a very sudden and disappointing turn around as Camden Council has today withdrawn the approval.

The Cabinet Councillor for the Environment, Cllr Sue Vincent has written to those objecting and stated that local residents ‘are concerned rightly or wrongly that this event could attract people who wish to take advantage of the cover of this event’ and that the local residents bore some brunt of the recent anti-cuts anarchic bad behaviour!

This is a poor excuse and panders to the ignorant view that Republicans are Anarchists or Leftists. Many are on the left but Republic states regularly that they have members across the political spectrum and more to the point; all their demonstrations have always been legal and not disruptive in the slightest.

The Police did not consider the event to be a problem and certainly not an event with a potential to cause disorder as shown here in their emails: http://bit.ly/dTxqn3

Contact Councillor Sue Vincent at Camden Council and explain why this event should be able to take place in a street like everyone else’s street party on 29th April. Email: sue.vincent@camden.gov.uk and also Rachel Stopard, Rachel.Stopard@camden.gov.uk (Head of Camden Council Culture and Environment)

Compared to the many other ‘not the royal Wedding’ Events taking place in other parts of the country. Republic’s central event is possibly the least provocative.

Poor Camden is the odd one out. Here are some other events where celebrating republicanism is being allowed: http://yhoo.it/fwT7Qg

Republic are currently considering legal action but the event will definitely take place, if not in Covent Garden then elsewhere.

Camden Council, a Labour run Council has made a gross error of judgment, in denying a sizable community the right to hold a street party the same day that so many other street parties will be taking place. And let’s face it, the vast majority are doing it to bring people together for fun (as are Republic) rather than to celebrate a wedding of two very remote people.

Fabricating Clegg

2011-04-11T19:47:00.055Z

Although I'm sure I slip now and then I'm very unkeen on the demonisation of individuals in politics. It always seems to play into a tribal and unthinking approach, where the baddies do bad things because they're bad and, because we oppose them, all things we do are somehow by definition good, even when they're counter-productive or rubbish.

Clegg: second from left

However, along came Clegg and he does make it bloody hard not to hate him as an individual. He just seems to lack any moral center what-so-ever. There are Lib Dems I have respect for David Howarth and Bob Russell to name a couple, but it's true that their yellow standard is so tainted I find the organisation hard to stomach.

Last week he was interviewed by Jemima Khan and the man was unable to tell the truth about even the simplest matters. When asked about his personal relationship with his boss, David Cameron, he said “We don't regard each other as mates and actually I don't think it would be a particularly healthy thing if we tried to become personal mates".

What a thing to say about one of your work mates? Especially when you've said you don't disagree with them on anything. No wonder the Tories are annoyed at the way the Lib Dems seem to be attacking their coalition partners even whilst agreeing with all of their policies.

However, on hearing that Clegg has a purely business relationship with the big man and thinks getting close to him would be unhealthy, she expresses surprise and asks don't they play tennis together? Clegg replies "No, no – well, er, I think we've played one game of tennis. Of course we meet from time to time but it's always basically to talk about what we're doing in government."

What an oily little tic. Disowning his friends in public because he thinks they might make him unpopular (note to Clegg: Cameron is more popular than you, not less), pretending he only meets them for work and then when he's pulled up on it his first instinct is to deny it. Only when he realises he could easily be caught out lying does he change tack and own up.

These little things are the mark of what kind of man someone is. There are no two politically closer individuals in politics than Nick Clegg and David Cameron - at least have the honesty and integrity to stand with your friends, even if everyone else thinks you're an idiot for it.

Monday selection

2011-04-11T17:33:00.000Z

France introduces its new bill to emancipate women by arresting two women.Rest assured they are now fully liberated in the cells.
With the elections gearing up pity the poor Labour candidate who mucked up his papers and has missed his place on the ballot paper in Blean Forest. Good luck to Green candidates Alexander Murray and Zoe Scandrett in their lone fight against the two parties of coalition.
So come first of August - are we occupying Monaco?
The Home Office has been forced to pay compensation to a trafficked woman it deported instead of helping.
Keith Flett has a great little post on moral and physical force in the progressive movement today.
Reuben has written another excellent post, this time on the safety of public sector workers.

Welsh Green Party broadcast

2011-04-11T12:59:00.000Z

Hot on the heels of the Scottish Green broadcast, here's the Welsh version. A lovely combo of Ivor the Engine and election geekery.

House of Lords selection results

2011-04-10T17:33:00.003Z

If the Greens are actually given seats in the House of Lords they'll be the only people sitting there who were actually elected (not correct, see comments) and will be tasked, among other things to replace the institution with a body with more democratic legitimacy. I've just spoken to our ERO and the results are public so here they are.

In order; Jenny JONES, Emma DIXON, John WHITELEGG, Shahrar ALI, James HUMPHREYS, Rupert READ, Alan FRANCISand three reserves. The first preference votes were as follows (the order changes due to James Humphreys gaining more second and third preferences than Rupert read).

First preferences for the candidates are as follows (you'll have to forgive me skipping the complexity of the entire STV count).

Jenny	JONES	692	25.5%
Emma	DIXON	439	16.2%
John	WHITELEGG	335	12.3%
Shahrar	ALI	328	12.1%
Rupert	READ	202	7.4%
James	HUMPHREYS	180	6.6%
Jessica	GOLDFINCH	94	3.5%
Alan	FRANCIS	78	2.9%
Rebecca	JOHNSON	72	2.7%
Larry	SANDERS	50	1.8%
David	AHERNE	49	1.8%
Stuart	JEFFERY	46	1.7%
Nic	BEST	44	1.6%
Hazel	DAWE	31	1.1%
Tony	SLADE	27	1.0%
Stephen	PLOWDEN	19	0.7%

Re-Open Nominations 27

Total Valid Vote 2,713

Of course, due to the extraordinary sub-feudal system we may well not get any places in the Lords it's all down to the government's largess. Roll on democracy - that's what I say. Oh, and congratulations to all those who stood of course.

Scottish Greens Election Broadcast

2011-04-10T09:45:00.003Z

Because from Scottish Greens on Vimeo.

Once you've watched this go look at this http://scot.gr/because/

The AV safe-o-meter

2011-04-08T22:53:00.009Z

Someone pointed me towards the site Voter Power which purports to "demonstrate the increase in voter power that AV would bring." So I popped in the details for Lewisham Deptford, where less than year ago I spent a tough General Election.

This was the result;

Now, I'm grateful for the stats and all but I do think the the idea that my "voter power would increase by 33%" is slightly misleading as it goes from "fuck all influence" to "still fuck all influence". If you live in Lewisham Deptford your vote doesn't make any difference under either system. An increase of 33% makes it sound like there's be a meaningful change, when there hasn't.

This is the key problem with single constituency elections (and Presidential elections) in that it is a combination of winner takes all and a postcode lottery. Under both systems the votes of those who live in Lewisham Deptford simply do not give the people the same say as those who live in marginal constituencies - and even they, generally, are only getting a choice between two parties to misrepresent them.

Under proportional representation every voter's vote is of equal weight - no matter where they live. It also means that in Parliament every political position with significant minority backing has a voice. For me that's what democracy should be about, people's voices being heard - not one where only the biggest tribes are allowed to speak.

School strikes over staff safety

2011-04-08T18:16:00.030Z

You'll have seen the news about the school that went on strike yesterday over 'pupil behaviour'. An impressive seventy staff members attended the NUT / NASUWT picket line of the smallish Darwen Vale High School.

The Head commented that "I am disappointed that the trade unions have chosen to take this action. The vast majority of pupils at Darwen Vale behave well and take their education seriously. We are in discussions with the unions and with the staff around how we can best resolve this situation so that staff feel well supported when they do need to deal with behaviour issues."

For me this totally misses the issue. The staff are *not* taking strike action against the behaviour of the kids, they are taking action against *management* behaviour which has led to any allegation, no matter how flimsy, leading to staff suspensions - more than 6% of staff members over the last year. It's the management eagerness to suspend staff that's the problem, not the fact that a minority of pupils are not well behaved.

While the head talks about staff feeling well supported it appears that she has pursued a policy of consistently taking action against staff members and making it impossible for them to enforce, for example, the no mobile phone policy.

The Independent writes that "The striking staff members claim the arrival of £80,000-a-year head Hilary Torpey has resulted in the sudden deterioration in relations between management and staff." This seems like an important point to me as much of the press are playing up the 'bad kids' angle, but surely the emphasis has to be on the 'ruthless management' part of the equation.

Simon Jones, National Executive Member for the NUT, said:

"Members are taking strike action as a last resort because of the head teacher’s continued denials that there is a problem with pupil behaviour in the school and her refusal to engage properly with staff and unions to find effective solutions to these challenges. Staff and unions have been raising concerns for the last two terms but the Head has rejected repeated requests for earlier meetings to try to resolve this dispute informally.

"We regret that this industrial action is necessary and recognise that it will affect pupils’ education for a day. However we have timed the strike to avoid disrupting any examinations taking place and in the long run we believe resolving these behaviour management issues will benefit all the staff and pupils.

"Negotiations are due to resume after the Easter holidays and it is hoped that further strike action can be avoided provided the Governors take the necessary steps to ensure teachers have the support they need to manage pupil behaviour effectively".

Discussing AV: Rupert Read and Darrell Goodliffe

2011-04-07T23:06:00.000Z

In the interests of broadening the discussion I asked Labour blogger Darrell Goodliffe and Green Rupert Read to set out the case for each side of the AV referendum. I asked them each to lay out their case either for a yes or no vote and then gave them a right of reply.

Rupert Read: There’s a good old saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But BRITISH POLITICS is BROKEN. Our electoral system is unfit for purpose. (It was designed for a two-Party system: it can’t cope with a multi-Party system.) We need to fix it: Ergo, vote #Yes2AV: http://www.yes.greenwordsworkshop.org/

So: What’s the case for voting NO? These are the two lines I hear:

1) ‘AV is good for extremists’.

Simply a lie. See me recently on ITV, from 8 minutes in, here. AV is the worst of all possible systems for extremists such as the BNP. Which is presumably why the BNP are vigorously opposing it... AV, a system in which voters can ‘gang up’ on unpopular Parties, will help ensure that the BNP never gets elected to Westminster - and moreover, if introduced in local government elections, would lead to the defeat of virtually all their Councillors. AV would drastically reduce the bane of ‘tactical voting’ that’s a necessary evil for voters when a multi-party political system is squeezed into a two-party electoral system. In the process, it would shut the door on the electoral prospects of the BNP... But if you want Nick Griffin to wake up with a big smile on May 6th, then vote NO...

2) ‘To hurt the LibDems, vote NO’.

The NOtoAV campaign, understandably (given that they have no constructive arguments to offer) are trying to turn the AV referendum into a referendum on Nick Clegg. This is a cynical way to treat a hugely important constitutional question; but there’s another reason, less obvious, why it’s wrong: Nick Clegg's Party will not benefit from AV. Under AV, you can give your first preference to whoever you want to win. The Lib Dems might gain votes in areas where they are weak, under AV, as they will no longer be perceived as a "wasted vote" in those areas. But they will lose first preference votes in areas where they are strong, as people will no longer be compelled to vote for them tactically in order to cast a vote that is not "wasted". Losing votes where you are strong loses you seats; gaining votes where you are weak does not. (See Liberal Conspiracy, Rupert's Read). ...It simply isn’t true that AV will be good for Clegg’s Party!

…Look at those who are in favour of AV: Virtually all the ‘progressive’ elements in Labour, including of course the Milibands and Compass plus Hilary Benn, Jon Cruddas, John Denham, Sadiq Khan, Michael Meacher, John McDonnell, Joan Ruddock…; the Greens; plus most of ‘civil society’ including notably organisations such as Operation Black Vote. Look at those who are arraigned against AV: the entire right-wing press, the Tories, BNP, Taxpayers Alliance, a bunch of ultra-right-wing businessmen and climate-deniers who are funding NO… and the most tribal, uninspiring elements of Labour: Prescott, Beckett, Blunkett… Darrell, do you feel happy in the company you keep: Griffin, Cameron, Hague (Open Democracy), Murdoch, Dacre, Guido Fawkes (Rupert's Read) and Matthew Elliott?...

Why I am NO to AV....

Darrell Goodliffe: Cards on the table time; I support electoral reform (to AV+ or a Additional Member System). However, a change to AV is the wrong change to make and since that is what is on the ballot paper it's AV compared to First Past the Post we have to discuss; not FPTP v our dream system.

A Yes Vote will not lead to further reform: Labour AV supporters overwhelmingly favour a stance of 'AV and no further'. The Liberal Democrats are facing an electoral apocalypse; whichever system the next election is held under and the Conservatives, well we all know what they want. Also, the Yes camp 'upselling' AV as something it isn't; proportional in any way shape or form, means that if it triumphs, people will rightly ask what's the point of another change rather than clamour for more. I am sure comrades reading this will pipe-up 'what about the Greens'....which leads me to my next point....

AV and smaller parties.... AV does not increase the chances of more MP's from smaller parties being elected. This is due to both the 50% threshold and the preference system. I am a member of Labour. I would under AV happily cast my second preference for the Greens. This would however, be pointless because my second preferences wont matter a jot; Labour will not be eliminated before a conclusion is reached where I live. However the preferences of the smaller parties under AV are unfairly weighted because the smaller parties are most likely be eliminated. It is inconsistent to claim AV will benefit the Greens and not the BNP in the same breath; the BNP's vote nationally is much higher than the Greens (sadly!)and therefore its their preferences that will need to be chased more often. Preferencing without proportionality is undemocratic and gives the second preferences of small party voters an unfair weight and makes some votes more 'equal' than others.

AV won't end tactical voting.... All it will do is shift the site of the tactical battle to peoples preferences, especially those people who vote for smaller parties. This is exactly what happened during the Labour leadership election where supporters of the three candidates who were never really in the running were assiduously targeted by the camps of both the Milibands.

AV doesnt ensure MP's elected by 50% of the electorate... Again, the Yes camp wants to have its cake and eat it; it says, 'Don't worry, AV is just like FPTP because you don't have to use your preferences'. However, if people don't then MP's will be elected by less than the magic 50% because those votes will simply stop being counted in the later rounds. This destroys another argument; that AV ends wasted votes. In my example above, all my subsequent preferences were wasted because my first choice wasn't eliminated and if somebody doesn't cast all their preferences then their vote isn't counted if their first choice Party is eliminated so theirs is too.

Change cannot just be for changes sake. It has to be the right change and the brutal fact is that AV is the wrong change; above anything else that is why I will be voting No on May 5^th....

Rupert's response to Darrell:

Let me take Darrell's arguments in turn:

"A Yes Vote won’t lead to further reform": Irrelevant. The question is whether AV is better than FPTP. As I've shown, it is. …But furthermore: is further reform MORE likely if AV is voted down? If anyone agitated for PR during the next generation, after AV had been defeated, the answer would come back clearly: ‘Britain has rejected even the modest move to AV; so it is POINTLESS offering voters PR’…

"It’s inconsistent to claim AV will benefit Greens and not BNP": Plain wrong, as I’ve shown. The BNP oppose AV because they are HATED – hated extremist Parties hate AV for good reason… Meanwhile, it’s AV that has enabled Greens in Australia to get their first MP elected.

“AV won't end tactical voting”: Duplicitous wordplay. AV enables voters to vote for who they want, from 1st to last. It will end tactical voting as we know it, in which people vote only for the lesser of several evils.

“AV doesn’t ensure MPs elected by 50% of electorate”: Technically true, but deeply misleading. Under AV, virtually all MPs WILL be elected by a majority of voters; under FPTP, most MPs are elected by a minority.

Darrell's reply to Rupert:

I certainly would’t deny Rupert’s point that British politics is broken. Nonetheless, we have to ask a little more than if something is broken. It would be a poor doctor that just proclaimed a patient to be sick and not even offer a cure or, potentially even worse, offer the wrong kind of cure. My submission is that AV is not the right medicine for British politics.

I deal with Rupert’s first line-of-attack in my main text so won’t expand on that. Regarding AV and the Lib Dems; AV will objectively help the Lib Dem right, as most leftish Liberal Democrats have de-camped to either Labour or the Greens. So, Orange Bookers will use AV to cement their alliance with, and electoral dependence on the Conservative Party - AV is shown once again to weaken the left as a whole and strengthening the right, which will be the net effect of its introduction in other areas too.

Nonetheless, we have to judge AV on its merits as a system; the only effect that should be decisive is on our democracy and here its my submission that this ’miserable little compromise’ is deeply damaging and should be opposed.

Thursday selection

2011-04-07T18:17:00.000Z

Lovely picture from the Scottish Election on STV. A new generation of MSPs take the baton.
We have a useful PR tip for the nuclear industry here.
Luna17 has 6 blind alleys and 6 ways forward for the anti-cuts movement.
Happy blog birthday to Paperback Rioter - one today.
HarpyMarx was at the Ian Tomlinson inquiry and has written a comprehensive report.
Alisdair Thompson writes against social mobility. I'm with him on this - if slaves can become slave masters it doesn't mean you've challenged slavery, only justified it. We have to be for equality and justice - well, that's my view anyway.

Today's Selection

2011-04-06T21:02:00.000Z

A video on why you should take part in the High Speed Rail consultation. Ignore the low tech levels and listen to the step by step arguments.
Talking of videos, there's a nice little video on why the cuts are the wrong answer.
Channel Four have an interesting article on whether AV would make any difference to election results in this country.
Brighton Politics takes a look at why Labour are trying to paint Caroline Lucas as an evil witch.
Congratulations to the new leader of the National Union of Journalists. First time the post has been held by a woman, although Jeremy Dear will be a hard act to follow.
Lastly, Reuben at the Third Estate has a nice little piece on the state of blogging today.

Today's Selection: French edition

2011-04-04T07:45:00.039Z

Readers in the Home Counties reassure themselves that there will be no pictures of black people in this post.

There's an excellent debate on the hijab between Salma Yaqoob and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown here, where Yasmin utters the incredible phrase "The French are racist" for doing something she agrees with but for the wrong reason.
The burka ban is about to come into force and Islamophobia Watch have noted the criticism Sarkozy is getting for trying to broaden the debate.
The European Union has rapped France over its immigration policies.
The French local elections have seen a massive shift away from Sarkozy. Comparing the 2011 results with the 2008 results we see the Greens vote double to 8.2% putting it higher in the polls than the Communist Party or the other left regroupments. Sadly while Sarkozy's vote dipped the far-right vote rocketed from just over 4% to over 15% as their new leader has tried to detoxify the FN.
Red Pepper says we should look to France for strategies to beat austerity.
And lastly Air France have revealed how aviation could be greener. No, they have.

Music for the streets: It Isn't Nice

2011-04-03T22:42:00.000Z

We're all in this together

2011-04-02T23:42:00.002Z

What's happening in Australia?

2011-04-02T09:38:00.053Z

Last week saw two events in Australia that should give all right thinking people (ie people who agree with me) a little chilly shiver. The first was barmy, the second much more substantial.

The Liberal leader Tony Abbott chose to back and speak at a major anti-government rally. Not against cuts, as here, but against taxes - carbon pricing to be exact (pdf) - an imperfect measure intended to aid the fight against climate change.

Unlike the UK where climate change is often seen as an issue for people far away in Australia they *are* far away and have seen bush fires, droughts, floods and disasters over the last ten years on a really frightening scale. They've even had record hail storms.

There really is no excuse for anyone to be a climate denier in Oz, but the main opposition Liberals (read Tories UK people) had a mini-coup last year deposing one leader who was seen as too reasonable on climate with an out and out denier.

However, under pressure from the right Labor has taken it's traditional position of buckling. This has led to Labor's leader, Julia to issue instructions to the troops to distance themselves from their Green partners, even as the Greens are welcoming the deal both partners just signed. As per usual the electorate have scented weakness and signalled that they just don't respect it.

Meanwhile in the New South Wales state election we saw a massive swing to the right giving the Liberal/National Coalition seats they never dreamed they might win. Of course, the small crumb of comfort here is that the Greens also achieved their best ever result including electing their first ever representative in the NSW lower house (who's from the midlands). However, in the context of an incredible swing towards the climate denying right that win is a very small chink of light.

At least we know there is a growing audience for left and green ideas as Labor's failure to deliver a progressive agenda becomes more and more apparent. Right now they're lost and in government, a terrible combination. Here's the results.

	%	Swing	Seats	Change
Liberal	38.6	+11.7	51	+29
Labor	25.6	–13.4	20	–32
National	12.5	+2.5	18	+5
Greens	10.3	+1.3	1	+1
Independent	8.8	+1	3	–3
Other	4.2	–3.1	0	0
		Total	93

For the geek minded I thought I'd also compare percentage seats to percentage vote under AV, just because it backs up the contention that AV accentuates trends which can, sometimes, lead it to less proportional than First Past the Post. That's by the by though.

	Vote	Seats
Liberal	38.6%	54.8%
Labor	25.6%	21.5%
National	12.5%	19.4%
Greens	10.3%	1.1%
Independent	8.8%	3.2%
Other	4.2%	0.0%

What's clear is thatthere is a space for a clear left progressive party in Australia, despite the growing vigour of the right, and that Labor's capitulation to the right's agenda does not just signal a lack of principle but is going to cost them dear over the next few years.

The AV debate begins

2011-04-01T23:14:00.000Z

Campaigning is beginning in earnest on the voting reform referendum. Party bigwigs, including Caroline Lucas got together to launch the Yes to AV campaign this week. By coincidence the Green's own Darren Johnson took part in a Radio Five Live experiment and managed to come an impressive second under AV (and a mere third under FPTP).

Out of the interesting people who are opposed to AV this week we have; David Owen, Paul Kenny of the GMB, Greater Surbiton, Paul Anderson, and Prospero.

Out of the interesting people who are in favour of AV this week are; Darrell Goodliffe, The New Statesman, Left Foot Forward, the Guardian editorial, and Daniel Knowles of the Telegraph.

There's also an interesting set piece debate in the Daily Mirror, the Spectator says things are getting nasty in the cabinet and the Economist just makes it all more complicated.

Martin Kettle thinks AV could make the Greens a force to be reckoned with. Newsnight are comparing how the two campaigns are using their freepost leaflets. No to AV will be launching next week.

A second little round-up on the march and direct action

2011-04-01T21:52:00.000Z

There's been a lot of stuff written in the last week about last Saturday's demo and the various direct actions around it. As it's been a slow blog week for me I've not really kept up so here are a few of the posts that are worth reading on the subject - although there's plenty more out there to choose from too;

We have a few firsthand accounts of the feistier bits of last week's anti-cuts march at paperback rioter, Jane Watkinson, beyond clicktism, Jack Ray, Dave Osler, Shirley Ford, Darrell, Doc Richard, march the fury, Adam Ramsay the black bloc, and this interesting video account.
From the anarchist side: Solidarity Federation wrote an open letter to UK Uncut which is worth reading and in turn Brighton Uncut responded to both of them. Political Dynamite also carries a report from the 'Radical Workers Block'.
After the surreal experience of the Daily Mail attacking participants for being posh, a policy I assume they'll be extending to the Royal Wedding, Dave Osler came to the defence as did the excellent Kate Smurthwaite. HarpyMarx defends the tactics as does Beth.
Madame Miaow thinks Dave Nellist gave the best speech on the day, Conor muses on Miliband's speech, which was always going to be weird as he's in favour of cuts.
A major win for UKUncut who also received some very welcome backing from unions and NGOs after criticism of them following Saturday's demo.
On the broader movement Gregor Gall asks what's next, Owen on why unity is not the most important thing in the world.

When will women get the vote?

2011-03-28T23:08:00.000Z

With it being census time it's somehow fitting to look back one hundred years to the 1911 census that was subject to a controversial boycott by the Suffragettes. Writing comments like “If I am intelligent enough to fill in this paper, I am intelligent enough to put a cross on a voting paper” or “No votes for women, no census” thousands of activists for women's suffrage protested the census.

My favourite story of the year is, of course, that of Emily Wilding Davison who, census night, hid herself in a House of Commons cupboard so she could legally say she resided in Parliament on the census form. Emily famously died two years later under the hooves of the King's horse.

Many struggles for women's equality have not been won but we do generally accept that women did win the vote and we don't want to go back. I don't think that's controversial is it?

So I was interested to read that in Saudi Arabia they've decided that they aren't quite prepared for women to be voting - literally. There are municipal elections due in Saudi next month and women were scheduled to be able to vote for the first time. Sadly this is not to be.

"We are not ready for the participation of women in these municipal elections," said the head of the electoral committee Abdulrahman al-Dahmash, while at the same time renewing promises that authorities would allow women to take part "in the next ballot."

He said that "Participation of women in elections took place in most advance countries gradually," which does not explain why no women will be allowed to stand or vote in these elections. There were steps along the way to, for example, equalising the age of suffrage between men and women but the first step was not cancelling the right to vote at all.

Considering Saudi troops are currently in Bahrain keeping the democratic forces down there it seems of a piece that they should postpone any democratic reform at home too. Indeed recent decrees in the last two weeks have declared that anyone criticising senior clerics are to be 'untouchable' and must be severely punished and protests have been banned.

For most of us in this country we see votes for women as an established fact, yet in many parts of the world governments that are our business partners and friends deny the people even this basic democratic right. Of course in Saudi women can't drive let alone vote but there are nascent movements for women's equality and for democratic reform.

Caught between the inspiration of the uprisings around the Arab world and fear of their repressive government those movements must feel themselves on the cliff edge, unsure whether to jump off and fly, or perhaps hurtle to ground.

German Greens continue to advance

2011-03-27T21:16:00.000Z

The results of the important Baden-Württemberg election are rocking Germany. In an area that has been Tory (CDU) since the fifties we are due to see their historic first Green President as a Green/SPD coalition rolls into power.

The Greens were the only party (bar the Pirates who hadn't stood before) to increase their vote share. Incredibly they doubled their vote to just under a full quarter of those who voted.

This comes as the Greens have been riding high in the polls for a while - what this spells out for the next general election though it is far too early to tell.

Party	Vote %	Change	Seats	Change
Christian Democratic Union (CDU)	39	-5.2	60	-9
The Greens	24.2	12.5	36	19
Social Democratic Party (SPD)	23.1	-2.1	35	-3
Free Democratic Party (FDP)	5.3	-5.4	7	-8
Die Linke	2.8	-0.3
Pirate Party	2.1	2.1
The Republicans	1.1	-1.4
All Others	2.4

Info source

Mini-march round-up

2011-03-27T19:33:00.001Z

A few bits and bobs on yesterday's march;

Madame Miaow has pictures and thoughts. As does Harpy Marx, Cath Elliot and Mary Hamilton.
Political Dynamite carry a report from the bike block.
UKUncut explain why they targeted Fortnum and Mason. You can also watch footage from said event. Plus Alex Pinkerman on CiF.
A few Green Party reports from Green Christian, Flesh is Grass, Stockwood Pete, Derek Wall, Adrian Windisch, Caroline Lucas, Jeff, Green Sheen (Belfast) and probably loads I've missed (comment and I'll add them, as per usual)
The press give their views Paul Mason, Al Jazeera, Nick Cohen, Guardian.
Groovy medic Tajasel gives her unique report of the day.

Let the Coalition government tremble - we are mustering our forces (best sign from march here).

March 26th: a political turning point?

2011-03-26T22:16:00.001Z

It seems that today saw one of the five biggest demonstrations ever in British history. While most of those protests were against Labour administrations, who didn't take a blind bit of notice, this one makes a nice change in that it is against the Liberal Democrats and their coalition partners, and has the backing of the official opposition (pic tweeted by Richard Mallender).

It seems there could be up to half a million people marching through the streets of London with another substantial demo in the north of Ireland. There was a significant mobilisation on the part of the trade unions but also non-coalition political parties and protest groups.

Ed Miliband addressed the crowd from the end platform despite having written Labour's cuts Manifesto for the last election and Labour councillors up and down the country voting, en masse, for cuts budgets.

In a move designed to annoy the Daily Telegraph UKUncut occupied Fortnum and Masons and there were a number of other peaceful direct actions, mainly against banks, and Anne Summers' windows were smash in a targeted strike against, um... shops? This led some wags to comment that police were looking for "hardened protesters" and that this was the "climax of the demonstration".

However, while the smashed windows seem pointless and, frankly, unrepresentative of the feelings of most of those turning out, the continuing direct action, which led to a number of protesters being arrested despite being completely peaceful, are a real benefit. Unlike the Iraq War march where the focus was simply on size it is very good to see that this protest was not just big, but lively and edgy too, with many people reporting a carnival atmosphere.

The TUC had come in for criticism for taking so long to organise this demo, but part of me feels this turnout is a vindication of that decision. There have been very well attended protests all over the country which have helped build this march and it seems unlikely that had this been called in January, for example, we'd have had anything like this turnout.

It does call into question where we go from here. I've seen various people talking about the next monster demo (and "let's make it bigger", etc.) but this feels slightly unimaginative and disregards the fact that these protests lend moral weight and confidence to the movement against austerity but cannot, of themselves, change government policy.

Right now, according to YouGov, the majority support the aims of the march (52% to 31%) but in order to get the government to change direct we need a viable strategy that goes beyond moral force. The next step is public sector strike action.

The prospects for industrial action that is coordinated across the public sector seem far closer now than at any other point in my lifetime. While Thatcher took on unions one at a time this government has taken on the entire country all in one go, banking on the weakness of the trade union movement. For the trade unions this is now life or death, if they let this moment pass without real action they are in danger of being snuffed out of any meaningful existence what so ever.

Of course, if they allow their links to the Labour Party to hold them back once again they will find their members out of work and/or demoralised by the end of this government. Thankfully unions like the PCS are not linked to Labour and are far more free to act effectively. Whether other unions can take the lead with them is another matter - but this march today shows that there is an enormous public mood against the cuts, let's not piss it away.

Some more misc.

2011-03-24T18:51:00.018Z

Sarah Palin's popularity - state by state. Oh my.
The Scottish Greens launched their campaign today. Oh good.
The London Greens have some interesting poll news. Oh La La.
At Top Soil they're taking Monbiot to task over nuclear. Oh boy.
Esta vivas looks at alternatives to the dominant agricultural model. Oh Oh.
Good luck to Ali Dizaei today. Oh you're going to need it.

Ex-Israeli President Jailed for rape

2011-03-22T21:07:00.001Z

You have to go back to 2006 on this blog to see the last mention of this, but never let it be said I let a story drop. The ex-Israeli President Moshe Katsav has finally been jailed for rape.

He's been sentenced to seven years in jail some large fines and, when he emerges from prison, will face other legal penalties for the actions he took while he thought he'd be immune from prosecution as President.

The fact it took such a monumental act of political will to bring him to book for raping state employees does not speak well of the legal system, although it is indeed good news to hear that he has at last been brought to justice for these crimes, if not the murders that took place under his authority while.

There is of course little chance that anyone will be tried for the deaths of children in Gaza over the last couple of days. These are a fact of life that we are expected to forget soon enough, as we look to other tragic events around the world.

Edinburgh Central: Climate Cafe

2011-03-21T23:04:00.000Z

Tonight I attended a Climate Cafe for the Edinburgh Central constituency in my ongoing attempt to decide how to use my constituency vote at the upcoming Holyrood elections. All five parties were in attendance and after much careful thought and consideration I decided I'd vote for Greens on the list. They are paying me after all.

The Climate Cafes are a really nice alternative to hustings where voters sit in groups and the candidates rotate round, speed dating style, for fifteen minutes face to face with each group. It's less confrontational and more intimate and everyone attending should get a good chance to ask their question of at least some of the candidates.

It also looks like the candidates prefer it to the all answer in a line approach, which always has the problem that someone answers first and someone last, skewing their ability to look fresh or comeback on other candidates.

I'll make a few comments about each candidate in turn, which were my personal impressions, I'm sure others in the room had a quite different cafe experience.

Labour's Sarah Boyack was first to our table. On some levels she gave the best performance of the five but having had a non-response to my email questions from her I've since discovered a whole number of locals who have found it impossible to get her to reply. If she doesn't listen to her constituents she doesn't get my vote, end of.

Her responses were pretty steady and competent, which always goes a long way and her comments about the reliability of tidal power, despite its early days in the research and development stages were interesting. I think she was the only candidate to mention (unprompted) local energy production, which is another fruitless plus.

Next up was Conservative Iain McGill who appeared a little nervous I thought. In his introduction before the cafe bit started he mentioned how his party was in coalition with 'Alex's Party' which was particularly cruel as I'm sure the Lib Dem Alex was hoping we'd forgotten that, he certainly winced at the time.

Iain took control of the table and directed it from the moment he sat down, which was in contrast to the other four candidates who all allowed the table to direct how the questions got asked. He also talked quite a lot which might have been nerves, or possibly a strategy to reduce the number of questions he got asked.

I asked him how we were meant to be meeting environmental targets if all the regulating bodies had been abolished in the bonfire of the quangos. He replied that the conservatives were not anti-regulation but were in fact for extra regulations, but they would be enforced in a different or new way. I happen to think this is completely untrue, but it was a nice try.

One thing he said that I liked, gasp, was to change the taxation on aviation so that each flight is taxed, not each passenger. I think that's quite a good idea, although admittedly small beer.

Alex Cole Hamilton for the Lib Dems came next who was appropriately enough asked about what he was going to do about all this junk mail. He replied he was on a 'sticky wicket' on this one as he'd be out of the race if he stopped the deluge of paper, which had the ring of honesty about it. He was the only candidate to have canvassed one of our table, which caused a frisson of excitement.

He did say that at a time when "we are cutting back on front line services" (note: this is not the line, the line is front line services will not be effected by the cuts, bad candidate!) councils producing lots of waste paper was one area we could happily cut without tears.

One thing he said that I liked was that it was not currently feasible for us to meet our renewables targets because there was no political will to do so. He said "the political class and the public at large are in second gear on climate change" and I always like to hear candidates slag off the public. I do! The public might not, obviously, but I think it demonstrates a bit of integrity. He then topped it off by saying the Lib Dems were willing to take unpopular decisions - that's one Lib Dem pledge I doubt they'll break!

Marco Biagi for the SNP was up next. He's currently the front runner for my constituency vote, but I'm still open to persuasion. The first question he was asked (not by me) was "Who are your preferences for a coalition partner?" to which he replied "Green, then Labour, then Lib Dem, then Margo MacDonald, then the presiding officer, then, um.... move to Ireland."

He was asked about new coal and he had a particularly dispiriting answer which was there is no need for it, but because of UK law it would happen anyway. While the Scottish government can use planning regulations they are bound over what arguments they can use and climate change is not one of them.

He also put the emphasis on renewable energy technologies, and all but said that we could not afford a massive home insulation scheme even though it is "vital". He is "100% behind it, but where's the cash?" That's not really good enough to be frank, but again it was shot through with honesty.

Green candidate Steve Burgess was last to our table. I'm entirely biased on him so won't bang on, but I thought he came across well with a quietly spoken and mild, thoughtful manner. He was the only candidate to attack oil, talk about moral obligations to other nations (this was a cafe about the climate after all) and the only candidate to talk about the role of the unions.

Things livened up a little when he criticised growth and was asked which industry's workers he was planning to lay off. For me this really underlined how even with a clear job creation plan at the front of our policies our critique of 'growth' needs a lot more refining, especially in the way we articulate it, otherwise it just sounds like we're arguing for a deeper recession - which we aren't.

Steve handled the question well I thought but we're not always there, face to face, to deal with these questions and, for me, all these phrases like steady state economy and zero growth need a lot more work before we fit them neatly into our Green New Deal approach. Anyway, I found it helpful, so thought I'd pass a report on.

EDM 1565: Libya, North Africa and the middle East

2011-03-19T23:51:00.000Z

It's my view that the current situation in Libya is not the kind of clear cut ethical question that some people, on both sides of the debate, would have us believe. For me whether we come down for or against military intervention rests on an assessment of whether our proposed actions will work (rather than simply making us feel like we're doing something) and whether the wider impact of the action will not work to the detriment of the revolutionary process taking place across the Middle East and North Africa.

The moral certainty that has been displayed by some when debating this question has made me feel rather uncomfortable, particularly when many seem unable or unwilling to provide supporting evidence for their claims.

Whatever happens now it is likely there will be a humanitarian disaster in Libya and it is up to us to ensure we are helping these democratic upsurges across the region for the chance of a long term solution, as well as taking stock of the immediate tragedy as it unfolds.

On balance I'm opposed to the proposed military intervention, but I recognise that others take a different view for perfectly legitimate reasons. I'm sure this discussion will continue over the coming weeks and you can still vote in the poll (right) which seems pretty evenly split at the moment.

I am backing EDM 1565 on this issue proposed by Jeremy Corbyn and seconded by Caroline Lucas. If you also agree with it you may like to encourage your local MP to sign too. It reads as follows;

That this House does not believe that Western intervention in Libya or elsewhere will bring about the peace, justice and democracy that is being sought by millions of people in North Africa and the Middle East; and calls for a rethinking of British and European foreign policy and a more concerted effort to apply international law and its human rights clauses in any negotiations or actions relating to the historical process that is now taking place.

As the air strikes pile in we've moved a long way on from talk of a no fly zone. The days and weeks ahead will no doubt see news that supports both sides of the argument, but it will only be the long term impact that will truly make it clear whether this was the right course of action.

Saturday selector

2011-03-19T18:51:00.000Z

Jenny Jones has been selected as the Green Party's London Mayoral candidate, she will also head the Assembly List. Bright Green has the Mayoral numbers.
Collective resistance asks what is a general strike?
Danny Chivers looks at Tesco's week of environmental action.
John Harris wrote an excellent piece in the Guardian on Labour's tribalism.
Bea Campbell points to her documentary on the Morning Star.
Former Camden councillor Alexis Rowell writes on why new nuclear was a mistake.

The new Arab revolts continue

2011-03-18T20:06:00.000Z

As Libya continues to, understandably, dominate the news I thought I might take a quick tour of what's happening with the inspiring revolutionary process that kick started the whole thing. Although, perhaps more accurately that's a tour of the repression that's currently taking place.

In Yemen 35 protesters have been killed when troops opened fire on them. The government have now declared a state of emergency.
In Iraq gunmen torched a TV station for showing protests, police allowed armed men to beat and stab protesters in Bagdhad, while journalists who reported the demo were arrested, as they were in Basra, in Anbar province security services shot five protesters dead, Al Jazeera have pictures of police shooting at protesters in Falluja.
In Iran they are cracking down on web activists,
There are mass demonstrations in Jordan.
Strikes closed 300 factories in Oman and the ports.
Clashes in Syria have left at least three people dead in pro-democracy protests.
In Bahrain Saudi troops have come in to restore order, and Kuwait is sending its navy (!), all to reinforce the status quo against the protests. This is while they enforce their own ban on protests. The Bahraini authorities have smashed a monument symbolic of the movement as the state rounds up the opposition.
In Djibouti opposition leaders have been arrested and there have been widespread calls to boycott next month's elections.
In Egypt the repression continues, with attacks on women marchers, as the wrangles over the constitution look set to leave the revolutionaries out in the cold.
While the inspiration of these liberation movements in taking hold in Africa, a place not so seperate from the Arab world.

Check out the very useful Iraq Occupation Focus. Meanwhile in Tunisia Clinton has made a visit to encourage economic reforms. Goodie.

More Scottish Crunch: Glasgow Kelvin 2007

2011-03-18T18:41:00.000Z

When you're an emotionally one dimension political hack like me you tend to do strange things for fun, like analyse spreadsheets in your spare time. I did think about taking up a hobby, like a sexual deviance, to break things up. However, I heard that rubber can chafe and I didn't fancy the taste of wee, so instead I've taken a look at an unusual Scottish constituency in the 2007 Holyrood elections.

What made Kelvin interesting was that unlike most constituencies, where only four Holyrood parties stood (Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and Conservatives) there was an array of candidates, including the Green Party's own force of nature Martin Bartos - who danced past both Tories and Lib Dems to take third place.

This, for me, is particularly interesting because the Lib Dems beat us to fourth in the regional list *in the same constituency* so we have Lib Dems voting for Martin on the First Past the Post ballot instead of where you might expect them to favour us, on the list. Mind you, this could simply be an extra argument for only standing in the list seats to prevent voters casting their Green vote on the "wrong" ballot paper.

This gives us an interesting contrast to Edinburgh Central where the constituency candidates were drawn from a far smaller pool. This time I've chopped off quite a few lower placed parties from the regional list, for the sake of sanity, if nothing else. Regional lists are along the edge, constituencies along the top;

Region	Kelvin Constituency candidates
	Tory	Christian	Lib Dem	Green	Ind	Labour	SNP	Total
Labour Party	0.84%	0.47%	2.29%	2.96%	1.18%	84.41%	1.71%	7016
SNP	1.14%	0.56%	2.25%	5.34%	1.74%	3.98%	81.67%	6742
Liberal Democrats	1.11%	0.39%	70.85%	8.19%	4.69%	9.59%	3.36%	2796
Scottish Greens	0.95%	0.23%	9.56%	64.27%	4.38%	11.35%	8.11%	2625
Conservative	76.58%	0.72%	3.67%	1.86%	3.88%	7.39%	3.26%	1934

OK, what do we see?

Once again the Labour Party voters are the most consistent/tribal with Lib Dems and Greens most likely to split their vote. For those who did split their vote the Greens were the most likely option for Labour and SNP voters, and a whacking 8.19% of those who voted Lib Dem in the list voted Green in the constituency. Only the Tories shied away from the Green vote, which is only fair as the feeling was mutual.

For those who voted Conservative on the list but split their constituency vote I was surprised to see they were twice as likely to choose Labour than Lib Dems. I do wonder if there is something interesting, if anecdotal, brewing here about what AV might really mean for the Lib Dem vote - particularly at a time when the yellows are seen as the dishonest half of the Coalition.

While many commentators seem to the think that AV will 'naturally' favour the 'center' party the evidence does rather point to the idea that AV accentuates existing trends and a low first preference turnout for the Lib Dems may well signal a low second preference rating too where Labour and Tory *voters* choose both parties as their first two picks. We'll see soon enough I suppose.

As always you can find the figures for yourself here (xls) and my ongoing gratitude to the Peat Worrier for bringing this up in the first place.

More on Edinburgh Central: 2007 data

2011-03-17T23:14:00.002Z

Time for a little more data analysis. Courtesy of Lallands Peat Worrier it has come to my attention that in Scotland they record comparisons of how people vote in the list and constituency votes. That means we know how many Tories, in a specific seat, voted for, say, the BNP on the list. And they have this for every seat in Scotland - Glorious!

So obviously I've taken a look at Edinburgh Central, which is where I'll be casting my votes in May. Last time round while Labour won the vote for the constituency, it actually came second to the SNP on the list vote from within the same area.

The table shows the total votes cast for each list (right) and the proportion of those votes that were cast for each of the four choices we had for the constituency. It's worth bearing in mind this was in 2007 before the Coalition, for example.

I've cut off those parties who did not out poll the BNP, partly because xl is being quite, quite insolent tonight and I had to do some of this by hand;

	Tory	Labour	SNP	Lib Dem	Total Votes
Scottish National Party	2.05%	3.71%	82.05%	7.77%	6876
Labour Party	1.42%	88.56%	0.98%	4.37%	6756
Liberal Democrats	2.16%	6.62%	1.56%	87.69%	4621
Conservatives	85.37%	4.89%	1.10%	6.31%	4107
Scottish Green Party	4.59%	26.80%	17.13%	47.06%	3619
Margo MacDonald	18.06%	27.55%	20.17%	31.18%	1844
Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party	17.78%	30.28%	22.22%	23.61%	360
Solidarity	4.29%	26.29%	39.14%	20.86%	350
Scottish Socialist Party	1.53%	25.46%	37.12%	25.15%	326
British National Party	34.72%	18.13%	24.35%	10.88%	193

Out of the voters for the four main parties on the list the SNP appear to be the party that voters were least likely to switch to and the Lib Dems the most likely. By the same token those who voted SNP on the list were the least likely to stick to their list choice in the constituency - whilst Labour were the more consistent / tribal.

However, it's actually the other parties who yield the most interesting results because they actually couldn't stick to their list choice, even if they wanted to.

BNP voters followed by voters for Margo MacDonald were the list voters most likely to choose the Tory candidate. The Senior Citizens were most likely to plump for Labour. Solidarity and SSP voters were those most likely, proportionally, to choose the SNP and the Greens were most likely to choose Lib Dem.

Of course, it's just as easy to see it in reverse and that a large portion of Lib Dem voters (for example) chose to lend the Greens their second vote whilst staying loyal in the constituency. The figures alone couldn't tell us which way round was the most sensible way to interpret the numbers.

There are some interesting little tit bits in their too if you look. For example, those voting for Solidarity on the list were more likely to vote Tory in the Constituency than even Labour, Lib Dem or SNP voters. Bizarre.

Tonight's Misc

2011-03-17T00:07:00.001Z

National polling on Libya and AV out.(Also good Green polling in Germany)
Better Nation have a hustings of Edinburgh Central. Unlike for mine Labour actually spoke to them. Favouritism!
In Australia a polling company has been caught distorting the figures against the Greens.
Tomorrow lecturers are on strike. Alasdair Thompson explains why.
Nick Clegg has been found alive and well. All is forgiven.
Did the Romans really build roads in ancient Briton?

Japan: a couple of discomforts amidst the horror

2011-03-16T18:48:00.018Z

The numbers of death and the level of destruction in Japan is hard to get your head around. Two minor pieces of news I heard today made me uncomfortable at the world we live in today.

First, Japan's stock market suffered an historic crash. This is unsurprising - those who exist in the markets do not make moral decisions, nor worry about how their actions effect millions of people. Nothing new there.

However the Bank of Japan this week has pumped $300 billion into the markets since Monday, dwarfing the generous donations given to the Red Cross and other NGOs who hope to help the hundreds of thousands of victims of this tragic situation. Our priorities do seem skewed.

Second, the UK rescue team who travelled to Japan to help with the crisis management only to be turned away because of paperwork.

The British Embassy refused to sign their documents for fear that they would then be legally responsible for their actions whilst in the country. Since when has legal responsibility outweighed moral responsibility? Probably always, but it doesn't get any better.

Poll: should we support military action over Libya?

2011-03-13T15:09:00.001Z

I've already set out my case against the no fly zone over Libya here and Richard and Claude have put the alternative case.

Opinions seem divided so I thought I'd set up a poll to guage opinion on this important issue. If you allow your eyes to drift to the right you'll see you have eight options and I've set the poll up so you can tick multiple boxes.

If you 'don't know' or want to explain your answer feel free to leave a comment.

Odds and sods

2011-03-13T12:58:00.000Z

When I was a child I thought the expression was 'odds and socks', somehow this still seems to make sense to me.

It's the end of an era in Norwich as leading Green councillors decide not to restand.
Check out the Scottish Blog Round-Up, very good.
Colin Fox writes of ousing and Edinburgh Divided.
Hangbitch on the myths of benefit privatisation.
Richard disagrees with me on Libya's air space.
Scientists have been studying swan's bottoms. Frankly what they get up to in their own time is their business and I fail to see why we should put up with this sort of tabloid shock journalism.

The case against a no-fly zone over Libya

2011-03-12T19:06:00.002Z

After some consideration I've come to the opinion that a no fly zone over Libya would be a serious mistake for a number of reasons.

First of all, the Libyan regime has, from the outset, painted this rebellion as a Western backed coup. It is their strongest card in keeping the military together and mounting an ideological defence of the regime. We have seen pilots take their jets to Malta rather than bomb their own people. Those pilots considering similar defections are likely to think again if their next mission is to defend Libya against foreign aggressors.

Secondly, it's a response to current, awful, events not a long term plan. The longer term impact of military intervention is not even part of the thinking behind this scheme. For example, who exactly are we backing? I'm for the rebels against the regime, obviously, but Western intervention inevitably means strengthening the hand of one faction over others. I'm unconvinced we know what we're doing, or that if we do, we have the best interests of Libyan people at heart.

There are some forces in Libya who are calling for a no fly zone and others who oppose it. By enforcing military action on the say so of one group of rebels over another we are having a far more wide ranging impact than just doing what has been asked of us 'by the rebels'.

Thirdly, will it do any good? My understanding is that the Libyan air force is a tiny part of its military strength, which lies mainly in ground forces. So we would be throwing an air invasion into the mix without significantly depleting the regime's capacity to murder its own citizens. Indeed we would be strengthening that ability.

The siren calls to stop the murder are understandable, but a no fly zone *wont* stop the murders, only intensify them and in the eyes of some waverers in Libya legitimise them.

Fourth, what would the wider impact of military intervention in the revolution mean? In Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Yemen the political implications of Western interference in what feels like a very home grown series of revolutions would be significant. The population of Saudi know that the West backs their dictators and to see their willingness to use military might, just as they did in Iraq, could hold back those struggles.

We are propping up corrupt regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan with the use of lethal force. To give the stamp of legitimacy on an extension of the right to use lethal force in any oil rich country we choose is dangerous. We are not the world's policemen, and even if we were it would not give us the right to stop black nations in the street and demand to know if this is really their country. *

However, the Arab League have backed a no fly zone, so does this mean it is legitimate? Well, the Arab League is a collective of 22 dictatorships who all buy weapons off the West and are scared shitless of their own populations taking the kind of action we have seen in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia. So it cannot be regarded as the authentic voice of the Arab people, only of their dictators.

If you look at the list of member states of the Arab League you will see almost all have been rocked by protests in the last month. Of course they want their arms dealer friends flying war planes overhead, it gives them a sense of security. What better way of locking down those forces within their own countries who may be considering deposing them?

So am I in favour of doing nothing? No. I am in favour of our governments restraining their natural instincts to see killing someone as the way to solve an issue. I am in favour of the rebels continuing their brave fight to overthrow the Libyan government, just as others have done in recent times. I'm in favour of yet more Libyan servicemen and women laying down their arms or defecting with their equipment. Hardly a Utopian position.

What it does mean is having a little bit of steel in the belly. Bad things are happening, but that is no reason to make them worse or to do the first thing that comes to mind just because it is doing 'something'.

It also means having the tiniest bit of humility and understanding that the West can't just step in and sort out the problems in an African country by killing a few Africans. We may find that not everyone is as grateful for our help as we thought they might be.

In order to be true friends of these revolutions we have to accept that these are not our revolutions, but indeed revolts against regimes we have spent many years doing business with. The bullets and shells Qaddafi uses to rain down on his own citizens were manufactured here, and frankly many people in the Arab world know it to their cost.

* I heard this joke elsewhere, it's not mine sadly.

Is Question Time Biased?

2011-03-12T11:10:00.004Z

Every week on BBC's political panel discussion show Question Time we seem to have one, or more, utterly rabid right wing fiends. The spawn of Melanie Philips, as well as Shelob herself, stalk menacingly into the studio cackling as they go. At least that's how it feels to me.

It turns out that the right think it's infested with Communists, a claim so unutterably off the wall as to literally make my head spin round. No, hold on, not literally.

James Dellingpole rails against "the appointment of Vladimir Stalin – or “Nicolai Gentchev” to give him his current SPECTRE agent name – as Question Time’s new editor", an appointment caused by its imminent move.

Now I've met Nicolai Gentchev who is, or was, a Trotskyist and a very nice bloke. He also came across as someone who is professional, and more than capable of objective distance. I miss hearing his name as an editor of the Today Programme but I'd not noticed references to deflected permanent revolution in any of John Humphrey's pieces during his time there. More's the pity.

Personally I think if Gentchev's appointment means less Melanie Philips' and more David Mitchells I think the audience would heartily approve, but it may well not signal a noticable change of direction.

As the exception that proves the rule this week saw Green MSP Patrick Harvie's first ever appearance on BBC QT despite the Scottish Greens having been represented at Holyrood from its inception in 1999. This prompted twitter to cry "Who's this bald bloke? He's rather good."

Even Working Class Tory paid grudging tribute to him saying "The Green guy, Patrick Harvie, rambled on at several points, but the audience seemed to like it. He was the most left-wing panellist they've had on in about three years. He even looked like Lenin."

I'm not sure if he actually is the most left-wing panellist they've had in three years seeing as Bob Crow, George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob have all appeared in that time, and they're *almost* as Lenin-esque as Harvie. However, I know how to take a reflected compliment - so thanks!

However, what is clear is that the Greens provide a distinctive and interesting voice expressing a significant current of thought in this country. They should be part of the mix more often rather than as the occasional after thought when Melanie can't make it. As it happens her eminence Caroline Lucas will be on QT in two weeks time, they're like buses you wait all year for a Green on TV and then two come along at once.

There is a real problem that as the three main parties have come closer together politically (with two of them currently fused) mainstream politics is simply too shallow a pool to draw an interesting panel from that can represent the real political views of the country. One reason to support Jeff's petition to include Harvie in the upcoming Scottish leaders' debates.

Of course, I wouldn't be for excluding the professional ideologues of the right wing press. These off the shelf, bought and paid for opinionbots are part of the political geography of the country, but the same is just as true of those to the left of Labour and no matter what the right think they are simply far too scarce on QT leaving a good proportion of the audience tearing out their hair and feeling unrepresented.

Japan Swept by Natural Disaster

2011-03-11T22:51:00.003Z

I'm sure everyone who's watched the unfolding events in Japan has been just as horrified as I have. The earthquake and tidal wave that followed are a stark reminder of the power of the planet we inhabit.

Hundreds dead, thousands missing and an as yet unknown long term toxic an polluting impact across a highly populated area. Trains, planes, ships and cars have been swept away like so many toys.

The Fukushima nuclear power plant was caught up in the catastrophe raising the possibility of leak as cooling systems shut down and the station switched to battery power. We certainly wish the authorities the best of luck as they battle to keep the station safe. It is rare for these kinds of events to effect nuclear power stations but, particularly in an increasingly unstable climate, the impact o such a disaster d not bear thinking about. (I was talking about tis the other day on pod delusion).

The good news, if that is the right word for it, is that the wave seems to be dissipating and is unlikely to significantly effect Australia, Indonesia or vulnerable Pacific Islands. It's also true that the numbers of dead are currently far lower than they could have been due to good building standards.

A poorer nation would have been obliterated by these crushing events. Never the less Japan must be reeling, my thoughts are with them.

Your Current Misc

2011-03-09T22:03:00.005Z

Let's have a Scottish Green round-up to celebrate the fact that Patrick Harvie MSP is going to be on Question Time (BBC 1, 10.35pm) tomorrow. Good luck Patrick!

First to Glasgow where intruders entered the Free Hetherington Occupation claiming to be Young Greens. Their claims were made bolstered by the fact that three of them were naked. Oh yes.
Robin Harper, the Green Party's first MSP, has had some fantastic coverage in the Scotsman today under the headline Jolly Green Giant. He does poke fun at the left though, so brace yourselves!
Lalland Peat Worrier takes a look at Green tactical voting in Glasgow Southside.
Scottish Liberal discusses drugs, the Greens and being fair to each other.
The third poll in a row puts the Greens set to triple their MSPs and hold the balance of power in Holyrood. Blimey. Mind you, it'll only happen if people vote that way. Front page Headline? Green Coalition could hand Labour Power.
Finally I'll point towards the campaign for a 'Warm Scotland'. Utopian dreamers the lot of them.

Placebos

2011-03-09T11:23:00.003Z

I was interested to see the reports that half of German doctors prescribe placebos. Presumably not all the time no matter what, only when they feel appropriate.

These doctors say the treatments often work, and I cautiously believe them, particularly when they were used instead of anti-depressants. The placebo effect is a documented fact, even if we don't quite know how it works - but it raises interesting ethical and legal dilemmas.

Is it right for a doctor to 'trick' their patients, even if it may help their condition? Is the doctor immune from prosecution if he or she prescribes a placebo and the condition worsens?

These placebos even include injections and sham surgeries, which seems a bit much, but I'm probably being squeemish.

The German equivelent of the BMA advised that better training should be given on the use of placebos and, most importantly, for international guidelines on their use. That seems quite sensible to me.

A disturbing vision of our free market future

2011-03-08T23:08:00.004Z

Let no one tell you that the Lib Dems are the cuddly part of the Coalition. Some would have you think they are the grizzled fur rather than the yellowed teeth of this rabid dog, but when it comes to the number one issue of the day, public services, the parties are of one mind.

Take a look at Vince Cable's recent Trade and Industry speech at Mansion House. Once he was the darling of the liberal establishment, what's he got to say about his achievements so far?

Well, he begins with the things he's really proud of " We have succeeded where our predecessors failed with a clear programme to stabilise and privatize the Royal Mail. We have put in place unprecedented higher education reforms. I could go on." But we hope you don't Vince.

He chillingly then outlines what his plans for government are; "We know business wants action, not words. That is why... we embarked on a Growth Review, an exercise every bit as rigorous and challenging as its spending equivalent. It has challenged every department to get behind the growth agenda, critically examining every policy that might get in the way or hold back our vision for private sector recovery."

So every government department has been challenged to harness itself to the needs of the private sector rather than, say, delivering a good service to disabled people or teaching kids to read and write. So the Department for Health has to get behind the 'growth agenda' ensuring it doesn't hold back 'our' vision for private sector recovery... glad no one is getting sick these days then.

He wants to "encourag[e] what Keynes called the “animal spirits” of entrepreneurs." That's quite interesting as I had a vague feeling I remember something about this, so I quickly dug up the Keynes quote...

"Even apart from the instability due to speculation, there is the instability due to the characteristic of human nature that a large proportion of our positive activities depend on spontaneous optimism rather than mathematical expectations, whether moral or hedonistic or economic. Most, probably, of our decisions to do something positive, the full consequences of which will be drawn out over many days to come, can only be taken as the result of animal spirits - a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities."

In other words Cable explicitly endorses something Keynes thought helped cause instability and was a product of 'optimism' rather than analysis. I wont dwell on this, he wont be the first, nor last politician to find a natty phrase regardless of its actual original meaning.

So let's move on to regulation. Most thinking people agree that the financial sector needs to have firmer regulation to prevent another financial sector crisis, or at least ameliorate it when it comes. They also happen to see that Barclays pay just 1% in Corporation Tax and think "Bloody hell, literally the richest are paying the least." So, what does this progressive have to say about regulating these loose dogs?

"Successive governments have made ritual commitments to reducing red tape but have added to it, inconveniencing businesses large and small." and then...

"Within my own department I have already taken action, to remove regulations which impede the ability of businesses to expand and take on people. This includes a review of labour market regulation specifically to stop cases reaching employment tribunals without a prior attempt at reconciliation and restricting access for unfair dismissal cases to the employed for two years rather than one."

So restricting workers access to employment tribunals and reducing their rights at work. How progressive of that cuddlesome Mr Cable! He goes on " Another useful step forward has been the steps we have taken to stop “gold plating” EU regulations and fight damaging regulatory impositions from the EU like the Working Time Directive."

He then talks about planning regulations being a barrier to growth, and how in the finance sector "My first priority was to ensure that the rapid deleveraging should not choke off, or make prohibitively expensive, the supply of credit to good British companies, especially SMEs."

This Growth Review he's outlining sounds more like the driver of a runaway train putting his foot on the gas. At the very time when the public have started to demand better regulation, and for business to pay its way Cable's emphasis is to advocate liassez faire capitalism without addressing why the crash happened in the first place. In fact he himself summarises his approach as "robust and unsentimental withdrawal of Government from unnecessary interference."

Jeezo.

So Cameron must be saying something even worse. Nope. He's singing from exactly the same hymn sheet.

At the Conservative spring forum he launched an attack on public sector workers in Whitehall and town halls who were the "enemies of enterprise". He denounced the "the bureaucrats in government departments who concoct those ridiculous rules and regulations that make life impossible".

When it comes to commissioning goods and services Cameron says we'll be "throwing open the bidding process to every single business in our country – a massive boost for small businesses, because we want them to win at least a quarter of these deals".

Competition in the NHS is just the tip of the ice burg it seems.

Meanwhile the CBI and the City are lobbying to pull down regulation and end high taxes for the richest. the head of the CBI "urged Vince Cable's Department for Business and Skills to scrap unnecessary regulations and make good its plans to boost exports with the offer of credit guarantees and loans."

I'll end with the Cameron's speech on his arms sales to dictators trip;

"Here's another thing I've personally been doing. Selling Britain to the world.
"You know some people are disdainful about that. They see me loading up a plane with businesspeople and say - that's not statesmanship, that's salesmanship.
"I say: attack all you want. But do you think the Germans and the French and the Americans are all sitting at home waiting for business to fall into their lap? ...
"So let met tell you: while there are contracts to be won, jobs to be created, markets to be defended - I will be there ...
"I'll be there not just because it's my job, not just because it's my duty, more than that - because I passionately believe - no, I know that this country can out-compete, out-perform, out-hustle the best in the world."

He boasts about "loading up a plane with business people"? I thought he was spreading democracy, no? At the very least I assumed he'd say it was a coincidence but he's right out there implying they maybe didn't even want to come and he's there "loading" them onto the plane, he's forcing them to sell their guns and bombs to people who really, really may need them very soon.

He passionate believes that we can "out-hustle" the best in the world. I agree, but think we must be stopped. This vision for UK PLC where every public body is chained to the needs of business is utterly horrifying to me and frankly I think would be an historic crime if allowed to happen.

Guest post for International Women's Day

2011-03-08T12:09:00.003Z

This is guest post by Jessica Goldfinch for International Women's Day. Thanks Jessica.

How I wish that this 'day' didn't have to exist, sadly it does and it needs to exist.

Women still earn in the regions of 17% less (full time work) and 36% (part time work), than their male counterparts for the same job descriptions. My union, 'Unison', regularly sends out reminders to get you pay level checked.

Looking at our televisions women are depicted as superfluous and fickle. Like male characters, this might be alright for mutual comic or near true-to-life depiction purposes, but when it seeps into every pore, I get angry. Women are only good for dodging chocolate muffins in the street getting confused over which damn yogurt to eat, musing over pebble shaped air fresheners and also the most important job of all - holding "compare-your-shopping-receipts-parties" - I must do that next week!

I get angry at having to buffer my daughter at every turn: at the corner shop, supermarkets, petrol stations, newspaper stands - so-called Lads mags, Sunday Sport, pornography and fickle displays of women are everywhere. What are boys and girls supposed to make of this?

The first time my daughter exclaimed in a petrol station queue, she was 5 years old: "What are big jugs mummy?" The queue members looked at me as if I was some permissive lax parent. I found the courage to point out that it was the shop that was wrong and that my child and I should have a right to buy a pint of milk without having to have the producers of milk thrust in our faces. I now challenge and have managed to get numerous shops to consider their responsibilities and change to dust covers and appropriate displays.

Women's bodies are for consumption everyday and in every conceivable way. Increasingly, this is now becoming a problem for boys and men, but not any where near to the same extent. If we saw men depicted in the women are in local shops etc., there would be uproar.

Pornography: porneia - the lowest class of whore in ancient Greece; graphico/graphia - graphic depiction.

So, we have it: The Graphic Depiction of the lowest class of Whores, every day in every way. Think about what that means for a moment; it's truly horrible.

I am not so naive as to think that the porn industry or the depictions of women as fickle will disappear, but I do believe that each and everyone of us should consider our part in these depictions. Our daughters, our mothers, our girls, our women and increasingly boys - we should have their backs at every turn and demand a 'public' space in which we can all feel safe.

Absolutely glorious

2011-03-06T21:11:00.000Z

Thinking aloud

2011-03-06T19:11:00.005Z

This Friday I'll be missing the funeral of a friend of mine. Not because I can't make it, although it would be difficult to get there all things are possible if you put your mind to them, but because I don't think I could bear it. Possibly cowardice, but more likely because I feel like I'd explode with hypocrisy if I attended.

He was a kind and generous man, softly spoken and cautious with his emotions. A real pleasure to be around and, in the intimacy of a one on one conversation, thoughtful and gently funny. He was also ready to talk about wrestling with his mental health issues in a self deprecating and darkly humorous way that always blunted the sharp edges of the topic.

We enjoyed each others' company and, once we lived in separate cities, would occasionally keep in touch with the odd text here or email there. But no more than that. Frankly we drifted apart. He wasn't even on Facebook or Twitter for goodness sake!

One drawback of being an emotionally self-sufficient introvert, which I am, and not requiring much from my friends is that, of course, those friendships can so easily remain at arms length and detach into nothingness. The upside is that if I never saw another human being in my life I'm not sure I'd be that bothered (as long as the shops still opened obviously).

If it's emotional sustenance you need I'm really not your man. Although I'm happy to discuss personal and emotional subjects, like right now, even then it will be in a cool analytic way without the visceral rawness of the hormonal tide that might actually be sweeping through me.

When I heard that my friend had killed himself last week I found myself gasping for breath. It was a moment we'd explicitly talked over and how his (then potential) suicide would effect his friends and family. I know I was pretty hard on him about it at the time, that it was his decision and his responsibility, no-one else's. Now it's real I'm less sure.

My thoughts soon turned to the friendship we'd shared and, well, the inadequacy of what he received from me. I'll be honest, those feelings of indirect culpability have been troubling me over the last few days.

Although I'd told him he alone was responsible for this decision, that he had yet to make, the fact is we are our brothers' keepers. We can make a choice as a society of individuals how much we're going to look out for one another, how connected we're going to be, and that decision has a real consequence.

I didn't put a rope around his neck, but I might as well have watched and done nothing. At least those closer to him tried, at least they were there for him and let him be there for them. I know in his heart he felt he was unneeded in the world and, as one of those who did not need him, in any real sense, I let him drown and he didn't even know I wasn't there.

We can't be there for everyone, but we can let people be there for us. The greatest thing you can do for another person is to let them help you. Their self-worth depends upon it.

Guest Post: High Speed Rail

2011-03-04T15:14:00.006Z

This is a guest post from my friend Cathryn Symons who blogs at Camden Kiwi After the debate in Cardiff on High Speed Rail I thought it would be good to get someone who knows about it to explain the problems with HSR2. (See also Caroline Lucas in the Guardian)

High Speed Rail poses a dilemma for many Greens. We are in favour of public transport, but also have concerns with the proliferation of long-distance commuting because of the impact it can have on towns and communities which become dormitory places for the mighty metropolis.

We know that rail is one of the most cost-effective and environmentally friendly modes of transport, both for people and for freight, but are also concerned at the environmental damage and carbon emissions caused by large construction projects and aware that rail can be a major energy user. Many Greens are also concerned about the impact of high speed rail on local people and their environment.

The recent government proposals to build a high speed rail link from London to the North, starting with a dedicated London-Birmingham line called HS2, have led to strong debate in the party. It is a debate which was finally resolved in Cardiff last weekend, when conference agreed the Green Party does not support the HS2 project as it stands, and will only support high speed rail when it is clearly shown to be part of an overall policy which reduces demand for travel, CO2 emissions and energy use.

So far, much of the opposition to HS2 has come from local groups who are, quite rightly, concerned about local impacts. HS2 would pass through areas of outstanding natural beauty and disrupt many attractive areas in the Chilterns. In my local area of Camden, there is concern about the loss of social housing as Euston station is expanded, and the effect of tunnelling under Primrose Hill. These are issues which could be sorted out if the project's backers wished to do so - routes can be changed, social housing replaced and even tunnelling work managed to be less disruptive. The fundamental issues of ever increasing demand for travel, high energy use and CO2 emissions are far harder to deal with.

The HS2 proposal will be, at best, neutral in terms of carbon emissions. The first London-Birmingham leg will not be available until 2026 by which time we will need to have severely reduced emissions, and for a major project like this to not contribute at all seems unreasonable. In fact, the project's backers have barely even tried to establish the carbon budget for the project.

Perhaps the most severe impact of HS2 comes from its dependence on enormous levels of growth in domestic travel over the coming years. As with building roads, there seems to be a 'predict and provide' approach, which simply indulges unnecessary and expensive travel. Birmingham will become part of the London commuter belt, in the way that Peterborough, Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Brighton already are. It is hard to see where that kind of growth will stop, or what use it is. Although claims are made that the line will reduce the North-South divide, and help to regenerate the North, there is no evidence given for this.

HS2 is not a sustainable project. It is possible that, in this small, densely populated country of ours, high speed rail will never really be sustainable. The onus should be on those promoting these projects to show that they benefit society and the environment.

So far, most of the resistance to HS2 has been local and risks being labelled 'nimbyism' and so dismissed out of hand. But there are wider issues here, which the Green Party has now acknowledged. Campaigning against this damaging, wasteful project needs to embrace both these wider environmental and social issues and the concerns of the Chilterns householder who finds a railway line planned for her living room.

Lib Dems come sixth in Barnsley by-election

2011-03-04T12:39:00.001Z

Scan courtesy of Darren Johnson.

A few links and that

2011-03-04T00:33:00.002Z

This Saturday the 6 billion ways conference takes place in London. If you can go, go.
Research Professional covered the Green Party conference science progress.
Bristling Badger says climate camp is dead, long live climate action.
Harpy Marx has an excellent Carnival of Socialism up now.
Camden Green Party on the big hoo ha in the streets at budget setting time this week.
Adelaide Green Porridge Cafe has a great vid the chain of fools.