Wednesday, June 23, 2010

A fair budget from a progressive government

Chancellor George Osbourne told us that this was a "fair budget" from a "progressive coalition" and I agree. Well, I agree as long as by "fair budget" we mean one that makes the most vulnerable destitute and homeless and by "progressive coalition" we mean shower of shits.

Last night I attended the Camden protest rally the cuts outside the town hall, a protest that was mirrored in dozens of other places across London and the country (Hove, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh (pictured), Parliament Square, Bristol, Portsmouth, and many others, add your report link in the comments). I think once people begin to realise the extent of the attacks we will see more and more of this sort of thing.

It was not a surprise that this was a cuts budget although I think the scale of the cuts has only really begun to sink in now it's been formally announced. Osbourne may have let the banks off lightly and reduced corporation tax but public services are in deep, deep trouble.

A two year pay freeze for public sector workers earning more than 21k and a minimal raise for those below that line, raising the pensionable age, part privatisation of Royal Mail, education cuts of 25% over four years, in fact all departments, except international development and health, will be expected to cut their budget by a quarter in this time. Bloody hell, that's not trimming the fat it's sawing off the arms and legs.

Then we have things like cuts to swimming, cuts to disability benefit, freezing child benefit and reducing eligibility for child tax credits, freezing council tax, very low housing benefit caps, 10% cut in housing benefit for those on benefits for more than a year, stricter regime for single parents. This is not cool.

It's the VAT hike to 20% that's likely to cause the strongest ripples across both left and right as it hits families hard and adds the tax burden on those who are deemed too poor to pay income tax.

While the Lib Dems appear to have won a concession on cider duty it may well be a double bonus for those who voted for the Lib Dems because not only does Clegg and co get to sit at the big table, they get cheap booze to chug in the shop doorways once they've been laid off and thrown onto the streets. Good times.

Additional material.

Bits, bobs and the other

A few points of interest;

  • Anti-immigrant laws coming in in Nebraska. Disgusting.

  • Alice Bell on citizen science and specialisms. Interesting.

  • New Zealand Green leader in a fist fight. Ding, ding!

  • In case you missed it, the four candidates for Labour Mayoral candidate. Ken-tastic.

  • Four refugees discuss Britishness. Salutory.

  • Tube strike today. Don't forget.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Dave Prentis wins UNISON General Secretary election

As the hyper-cuts budget is announced it would be easy to overlook the election of the General Secretary of one of Britain's largest unions, and one whose members will be bearing the brunt of the public service bonfire. Who leads the union in this crucial time is extremely important.

The incumbent Dave Prentis, who Cameron took the trouble to slag off the other day, won the votes of 67% of the 216,116 people who cast a ballot (14% turnout, which is pretty standard). A fairly ringing endorsement of a union moderate who has been able to make the right noises in the press but has also taken a hard line approach with the left in the union, including some extremely dubious expulsions.

His two challengers were both from the left. Roger Bannister of the Socialist Party won an impressive 20% of the vote and Labour Party member Paul Holmes won the remaining 13% for the 'United Left'.

The result is no surprise given that Prentis was nominated by a whopping 371 branches, 11 regional councils, 7 service groups and the National Executive Council (compared to Bannister's 31 branches and Holmes' 52 branches) but the size of the opposition is significant, as is the fact that it all came from the left of Prentis.

It's also interesting that Prentis has seen his support among members decline from the 77% of the vote he received five years ago, with the left increasing it's share of the vote (last time round Jon Rogers, also a left Labour Party member stood as the United Left candidate).

2010 candidates

2005 candidates

Dave Prentis 145,351 (67.3%)
Dave Prentis 184,769 (75.6%)
Roger Bannister 42,651 (19.7%) Roger Bannister 41,406 (16.9%)
Paul Holmes 28,114 (13.0%) Jon Rogers 18,306 (7.5%)

216,116

244,481

It's interesting that in both elections Bannister was put under a great deal of pressure by the 'United Left' to stand down in favour of their candidates who on both occasions received more branch nominations but less support from ordinary members.

Quite rightly in my view the Socialist Party understood that they had the better placed candidate among members, even if the United Left was able to mobilise a certain layer of branch officers. On both occasions it was seen as the height of sectarianism on the part of Bannister not to step down, and on both occasions it turned out that it was the United Left that was in fact speaking to a more narrow section of the membership.

At no time did the United Left seriously consider stepping down in favour of Bannister despite the fact that such a move could bode extremely well for a more coordinated approach to elections and campaigns at other levels of the union. Such as it is the different cliques of the organised left in the union are still at daggers drawn and will, therefore, remain unable to win a majority influence.

However, the good news is that 32.3% of the union's membership who voted opted for a fighting union that takes on the government cuts agenda head-on. Whether that one in three can be translated into victories in the public sector depends not just on UNISON members but the wider movement as a whole.

Tuesday's football pieces

The English press has been in hog heaven with a hapless England team to eviscerate, a gormless John Terry standing up for honest speaking (honesty being his most famous trait) and Wayne Rooney having the gall to complain about the fans when he should have been lashing himself with sharpened twigs.

They also get to repeat, ad nauseum, "at least we're not France". You see whatever ructions there have been in the England camp we haven't had people sent home and a player revolt that left leading players on the benches - a hoo ha that is widely seen as leading to their dismal performance that, as of today, ensures they couldn't clear the group stage.

However, it's the racism of the thing that should interest us. The complaints have mounted that the French squad, and in particular the black players, are not patriotic enough and do not represent France. They don't even sing the national anthem at the start of the game. This led to one poll yesterday saying that 75% of French people hoped that the squad did *not* win today's crucial game.

Well, I guess there'll be dancing in the streets of Paris tonight then. Now for the round-up;

  • The Mail has an odd story implicating Rooney and Terry in the killing of kangaroo babies.

  • I'm a great fan of David Zirin, the American sports journalist, who has responded to Terry Eagleton's remarks that if we are to gain any social progress we'll have to abolish football.

  • Sunder Katwala claims the left is winning the cup.

  • Kasama says that the World Cup draws out the difference between the South Africa that could have been and the South Africa that is.

  • John Foster says that the USA has finally learned to embrace and despise football.

  • Charlotte Gore looks at the players' pay and motivations.

  • Derek Wall says that the media have censored the protest of Argentinian players.

Is it the Jews?

Sorry about the blogging gap, I've been enjoying the sunshine and pretending not to be a nerd. However, if I hadn't been out I wouldn't have picked up a fascinating "Christian" leaflet from a man who was very keen to tell me that he'd written it himself. I restrained myself from saying "You don't say" as I admired the clip art party balloons and point eight size font.

Anyway, I only got a chance to read it just now and, as you can imagine, the quality of the content was of the highest kind. I'm not referring to the piece on back which, with classic British deadpan, declared that before Adam ate the apple "there were no weeds" or that the author had "seen articles that suggest the existence of gay animals". Glorious.

It had a great style to it that tickled me. For instance "Adam and Eve were naked year round. With "The Fall" began the fashion industry." Brilliant.

More seriously though when the lead article claimed that there is a "group [who] gained control of the economy, industry and military of most of the world over generations" that we have to watch out for. Don't worry though because you'll be able to recognise them as "God himself has a hook in their noses". Oh. Does he.

He then goes on to remind us of Habakkuk's thoughts on the "sins of Israel" and how God punished the sinners by using the Babylonians (pictured), even though they were "even more wicked than Israel."

He then points out, apropos of nothing, that Hitler was also a wicked man just like those Babylonians who God used to work his will. We need, he goes on, "radical surgery" to cure society's ills, otherwise "evil International Bankers" will wreak a terrible hurricane upon us.

Obviously he's done us all a great service by bringing to our attention this horrid bunch who control everything, especially the banks, and have hooks in their noses, but who can they be? They aren't named, which is inconvenient. Hmmm, they exemplify the sins of Israel and we might need someone a bit like Hitler to sort it out, even though Hitler wasn't very nice - like the Babylonians.

No. Can't think who it might be he's referring to, but I do feel slightly ill about being quite so friendly to him earlier. Quite some moral trick though, to say that being evil is to do God's work and that good people tend to stand idly by when there is God's work to be done, which makes them evil and they will be punished.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Saturday's Football pieces - oh dear edition

The England team's pitiful performance last night leaves it in need of a decisive win on Wednesday, against the only team in the group that has so far won a game. If that wasn't pressure enough the weight of the press (tabloid and respectable) must be suffocating as not a kind word can be found about the team they are supposed to be supporting.

One fan took it on himself last night to burst into the team's dressing room to give them a piece of his mind, which is generous as he didn't have much to spare for himself. Good hearted I call it. He was most likely only able to get through security because it's on strike.

Meanwhile Wayne Rooney is taking up much of the column inches as he decided to publicly rebuke fans for being less than supportive of the national team. Fans responded with drivel like "He's paid millions to be a role model and I've come a long way for this so I expect him to win all the games he plays in and behave himself while thousands of people heap scorn upon him as he sees his World Cup dreams dashed."

Basically I'm with Wayne on this one. England fans and the press do everything they can to demoralise their team. If you want working class footballers to reply to the boos and hisses with a smile and a bland salute then you'll be waiting a long time for that. Good on him. You can't win games with all stick and no carrot.

  • Disgracefully the Vuvuzela has been banned from Cardiff. That's Welsh culture you're messing with!

  • Those who risk their lives to watch the Cup in Somalia.

  • The strikes have spread to half the venues where cops have replaced stewards.

  • The Guardian argues that football banning orders are out of control.

  • The Algerian team psyched themselves up for the game by watching Battle of Algiers.

Some more misc.

At the risk of over "link dumping" I'm also aware that what with these daily World Cup round ups everything else is getting rather sqeezed. Well, we can't have that can we? No.

  • This little interactive tool explaining the orbits of the planets is lovely.
  • Christopher Ecclestone reveals why he quit as the Doctor. Shame, I thought he was good.
  • Gabrielle Mokake is under the threat of deportation to Tanzania, where he hasn't lived since he was nine. Sign the petition here.
  • Last night around fifty people were deported to Iraq, surely this has to end?
  • Gregor Gall explains very slowly why laying people off is bad for the economy.
  • This little video made me cry, you have been warned.

Coalition wobbles?

Perhaps there's trouble in paradise? A liberal and conservative party starting up a marriage of convenience and yet under the strain of a tough economic climate they've started to bicker and stopped talking to each other over breakfast.

One partner wants a laissez faire partnership where the market is free to screw who it likes, the other wants a more traditional arrangement where frugality and responsibility with the public purse is the order of the day. On the face of it they agree in cuts and budget constraints but the tensions beneath the surface start to break out with a harsh word here and an off message briefing there.

The ink is hardly dry on the German coalition government's agreements and already there have been huffy resignations, bad news at the polls and talk of early elections to sort this mess out once and for all.

The German economy may still be one of the most robust in the EU, but it is no longer in a position to simply bail out other economies or fulfill its traditional duties of Europe's banker. This is causing international tensions as well as internal ones with France's Sarkozy making pointed remarks about Merkel's government.

The left has smelt blood and is pushing the coalition to take the plunge and call a new general election. It's certainly not an option either partner would take willingly as it would be seen as a major defeat, but if the working relationship between the parties and, crucially, within them has broken down to such an extent that they can no longer run a viable government then there may well be no choice.

It couldn't happen here though. The Lib Dems and Tories have found a very comfortable working relationship with each other and have, possibly to their own surprise, found each other more than natural allies in government, particularly when the Lib Dems are such accommodating partners. No early election for us I reckon.

Friday's football pieces - bumper edition

  • Caron is jolly excited by the way we all got to pay for Boris to go to the World Cup. Super!

  • Andy has spotted a useful round-up of the African blogosphere's reaction to the Cup.

  • Paul Sagar asks whether the England squad need better incentives.

  • Fatima Asmal wonders whether all of South Africa is feeling the fever.

  • David Bond declares that this is the most boring World Cup in history, and we haven't even finished the group stage yet!

  • Paul Mason explains what bank regulators could learn from football referees.

  • The ongoing coverage of from the Watson brothers at back of the net is most enjoyable.

  • The London Progressive Journal has two Cup related stories. One moaning about the way advertisers have treated it like one long sales pitch ("pitch" - get it!) and the other discussing nationalism and hype.

  • Sunder Katwala explores whether we should consolidate our patchwork of useless 'national' teams into one, easily managed useless British team.

  • The Church Times notes that the Vuvuzela is Africa's "revenge on the West". (h/t Splintered Sunrise)

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Thursday's football pieces

  • Claude ponts out that England's goalie has done immigrants a favour.

  • Mark Steel is thinking of turning Japanese.

  • Sunder Katwala thinks that the left is falling behind n the World Cup.

  • Little Richardjohn wants the sounds of the crowd not the bleating of the commentators.

  • Red Pepper looks at the stadiums and their value.

  • Terry Eagleton says that football is the dear friend to capitalism.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Doctors to break confidentiality

I was disturbed to see the news that doctors are to be given leeway to break patient confidentiality. The BMA has agreed with the police to share patient information where gun owners suffer from mental health problems.

I'm uneasy about this on a number of levels, whatever benign thinking lies behind the idea.

In general there has been a lack of knee jerk responses to the Cumbria shootings from the political establishment, despite the fact that the press felt unable to stop itself from page after page of unseemly rubber necking coverage for day after day. This proposal however could have serious implications.

The BMA has said that "Where doctors know that a patient has a firearm and, in their view, as a result, presents a risk of harm to themselves or others, both legally and ethically, this information can be disclosed without consent."

Part of this new move means that the gun ownership register will be linked up (in some way) to patient records where all medical records of gun owners will be 'flagged'.

There are two key problems with this in my view. Firstly, it could well prevent gun owners from seeking help from their doctor, actually increasing the probability that they will pose a future risk to themselves or others. If the consequence of having mental health problems will be that police officers, who are not properly trained in these issues, are informed that you are a public risk it's a fairly large disincentive from telling your doctor about your problems, not to mention the unpredictability of the actual response of the police when given this information.

The intention may be that doctors only inform the police in the clearest possible circumstances (although this is not explicitly stated) but it is introducing an onus upon doctors to correctly identify when mental health issues are likely to lead to murder or suicide and when they will not - which is a heavy and impossible responsibility.

The second point is that many services find it difficult to get people to come forwards and give confidential information. A slippage in confidentiality creates a problem for every service that relies on the public having absolute confidence that information they give will go no further because it means that there is a redefinition of our terms taking place.

Confidentiality ceases to be an absolute, where a patient or service user can confide information without things going any further, and turns it into a grey area where, generally, no one will be told but sometimes they will be. That's socially dangerous and could well undermine the ability of the mental health services to do their job.

Why Lord Tebbit is wrong, as always

Norman Tebbit, his wife (pictured) were victims of the 1984 IRA Brighton bombing of the Tory Party conference, an event which, no doubt, has had a profound personal impact on their lives. It is understandable that he feels aggrieved at having been blown up, who wouldn't.

However, he is wrong to say that if there is an inquiry into the Bloody Sunday killings then there should also be an inquiry into the Brighton bombing, and indeed every other death at the hands of the Republican movement.

He says that "The victims of Brighton are no less important than those of Londonderry. They should not be treated as second-class victims... Some victims, the peace process seems to imply, have superior rights to others."

This is interesting because he spent most of his career treating the people of "Londonderry" as second class citizens and has rarely, if ever, expressed sympathy for the victims of Bloody Sunday. More to the point though I'm not sure it follows that giving justice to those shot dead by British soldiers that day does, somehow, downgrade the status of other victims of the troubles.

It does however say quite a bit that Tebbit is unable to hear these victims get sympathy without somehow implying that this sympathy is an insult to others. It never works the other way round does it?

When the Brighton bombings come up does he feel obliged to say "We must also remember that there were victims on the other side too who must feel terrible." Not a bit of it. You're more likely to hear the Generals and officers who are currently busy muddying the bloody waters to point out when some media sycophant points out that many soldiers were professional and restrained in their job that "we should not forget that others were murderous psychopaths just looking for any excuse to bully, victimise, torture or even murder someone if they could get away with it."

However, there is a very good reason why Bloody Sunday needed an inquiry and the Brighton bombing does not - and it has nothing to do with how "worthy" the victims of the two events are.

Patrick Magee, who was released under the Good Friday Agreement, was personally responsible for the Brighton bombing. He admits this, and it is uncontested. He did this under the instructions of the Provisional IRA who, at the time, said "Mrs Thatcher will now realise that Britain cannot occupy our country and torture our prisoners and shoot our people in their own streets and get away with it. Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always. Give Ireland peace and there will be no more war."

All the key facts around the Brighton bombing are uncontested and the political reasons for the bombing are clear and open. We can argue about whether the bombing was "a good thing" or not, although I doubt there are many these days who'd be willing to defend it, but there is no cloak of secrecy around the events.

Unlike the IRA the British State was never clear and unequivocal about what had happened or why. The victims were lied about. It was said they were armed, that they were rioters, that they had petrol bombs, that the British soldiers were returning fire. None of this was true, but all of it was repeated as truth in the British press while dissenting voices, who knew the truth, were silenced.

That is why the events of Bloody Sunday required an inquiry - the uncover the truth that had been denied in all the official accounts. The victims of the Brighton bombings know the truth. It does not make them second class victims as Tebbit claims just because the state never took the trouble to smear and denigrate those who'd been killed.

Wednesday's football pieces

  • The New Statesman takes a look at the lilting nuance of the vuvuzela.

  • They must have been watching the way the professionals play them.

  • BBC website about why have the Cup in Africa and then insist it's too African.

  • The Guardian tells us that goalies are basically misfits

  • Disgraceful detention of Dutch fans for wearing cloths with logos from non-sponsors.

  • After the ITV cock-up the Independent reminds us the ads have spoiled the fun before.

  • Mark Steel has a great time denouncing the not so free market of the World Cup.

  • Lastly, I enjoyed this letter from Eddie Dougall, "The incessant noise of the South African vuvuzelas is a disappointment: it is still possible to hear the non-stop comments from the pundits and commentators above it."

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Bloody Sunday

Something I never thought I'd ever hear a Tory, or Labour, Prime Minister say; "What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong." He went on to make clear that every person who was shot and killed by the paras that day was innocent, unarmed and a victim of injustice.

Cameron then apologised for the killings and seemed to accept the report's finding that some serving soldiers had lied under oath about their actions on that day. The victims have been exonerated of all the slanders that were told about them after their deaths. The government has taken responsibility for the actions of its armed forces. Extraordinary. The PM's full statement.

The reaction of the families was extremely moving. There seemed to be a real feeling that some kind of healing had taken place, and whatever happens next I'd like to thank Cameron for being so clear and unequivicol in his statement on the findings. Kate Nash said "My brother William. We know he was innocent, we've always known. Now the world knows." Some of families reactions.

This has been a victory for the victims and their families, even if it's a victory that took decades to long to come.

Eamonn McCann, who was there on the day, has been a long and active campaigner for justice. He said that “The responsibility for Bloody Sunday doesn’t simply rest with those on the ground, it rests with the senior officers who sent the paras into the Bogside in full knowledge of what was likely to happen. When people talk about prosecutions I think it would be unfair if they were made to carry the entire burden of guilt. There are people more culpable than them.”

Bernadette Devlin, who was also a leading light in the civil rights movement and witnessed the events said that "As a member of parliament at the time, I was denied the right to give parliament an eyewitness account. The home secretary, Reginald Maudling, lied to the House and the media willingly collaborated in uncritically repeating the government misrepresentation. In what was considered gross overreaction and disgracefully violent behaviour, I crossed the floor of the House and hit him.

"I did not call for a public inquiry, did not welcome the Saville inquiry and only testified to respect the wishes of the bereaved families. I regret none of those things, but challenge the view that it was an expensive waste of time, energy and money. Had Bloody Sunday been no more than a violent and disgraceful overreaction or unlawful behaviour on the part of a few "squaddies" or overzealous commanders, it would not have required the British government and its military to create the complicated labyrinth of lies and deceit which has taken hundreds of testimonies, thousands of pages, millions of pounds and 38 years to unravel."

The Irish Independent has a useful key facts piece on the report. You can read the entire report here.

Tuesday's football pieces

More bits and pieces from the World Cup I thought people might be interested in. I should point out I'm not necessarily endorsing any of the opinions in these links, but I do think they are worth a look - otherwise I wouldn't link to 'em.

  • There's an interesting Mum's Net discussion on the relationship between football and domestic violence.

  • Olly Zanetti asks whether those who shun flags are just snobs.

  • Talking of snobs the BBC (also) may be looking to purge them from our screens.

  • The Guardian is having fun at the moment. Check out their lego re-enactment of Saturday's game.

  • The Sauce looks at slum dwellers who are facing eviction during the Cup.

  • Peter Guest tells us not to patronise Africa. It was great even before the World Cup.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Prisons round up

  • Norway's liberal jails. Time.

  • What have prisons got to do with justice? Jock Coats.

  • Do prisons need religion? Guardian.

  • Police pay out to protesters they illegally detained. Guardian.

  • What do the Tories plan for prison places? Left Foot Forward.

  • Lastly, a quick reminder of the excellent Ben's blog, Britain's only blogging prisoner.

Monday's football pieces

  • The riot police break up Durban wages demonstration. AP.

  • In defense of the vuvuzela. Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonk. Anton Vowl.

  • But Fifa is considering banning the vuvuzela. Guardian.

  • The world cup is not xenophobic. Robert Sharp.

  • Why I love the world cup. Random Blowe.

  • World cup good, athletics rubbish. Reuben.

  • I was surprised to read this World Cup analysis from all round good guy Paul Mason.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Football pieces, Sunday

  • Madam Miaow speculates "the only thing worse than watching a team sport is playing one".

  • The New York Post has a sober account of yesterday's match.

  • Beansprouts has more personal, touching, reflections on the Cup.

  • Links magazine looks at the economic price to South Africa's workers.

  • ITV has apologised to viewers after they cut away from England's first goal of the cup in order to sell us shit. One viewer imagines what 1966 would have looked like in their hands.

  • Talking of naked capitalism... it's outrageous that free condoms are forbidden from stadiums because Durex is a sponsor. In fact the sponsors have completely crowded out local vendors who are entirely excluded from the games. This is particularly off because of the pre-World Cup fuss made about prostitution, a discussion which has almost completely disappeared.

  • This is a really fun little gadget from the Guardian. It's the twitter action replay, with time line, from all the various games. I've checked out a couple of examples and it works brilliantly as well as being slightly mesmeric. Do check it out.

Bring on the clowns

We all know that Latin America is a hot bed of Communism. So much so that the very bastion of conservative comedy has been infected. Yes, the clowns are on the march in El Salvador.

The demonstration of one hundred professional clowns and their supporters included fire-eating, tricycling, sitting in the road and, of course, a quick break for prayers was in response to the fact that a man had been shot dead by two clowns after he had refused to give them money.

One banner read "real clowns are not criminals". A clowns union spokesman (yes, you read that right) told Sky News "If the criminals can get hold of police uniforms imagine how easy it is for them to get hold of a clown's outfit."

The union is calling for clowns to be issued with official documents which they can show members of the public to show they are "real" clowns. The clowns are concerned that their livelihoods depend upon the public (like buskers) and that any ill-will shown towards them may cost them their ability to put food on the table.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Football pieces

Friday, June 11, 2010

What is Schwarzenegger playing at?

Interesting news has come out of this week's US primaries (a process which selects the parties' candidates for the major elections later this year). In California Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger has come to the end of his allotted time as governor and will soon be passing on the baton.

You might assume that he's automatically endorsed the Republican nominee. Not so. You see there's a problem because the Republicans have selected a Tea Bagger, one of the new right and follower of Sarah Palin, whose politics are decidedly at odds with Arnold's more moderate Republicanism.

Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, was personally endorsed by Dick Cheney, and her selection was greeted with glee among the right-wing commentators.

According to her website she plans to create two million new private sector jobs in California by 2015 using targeted tax cuts alone, including abolishing capital gains tax. She's either a genius, a fool or a liar - or perhaps a bit of each. Of course, while she's creating jobs with her magic beans she'll also be laying off state workers with her proposed $15 billion cuts in public spending.

However, I'm sure this kind of conservative economic plan is not what's putting the current governor off. Rather it's her social conservatism that has him worried. Her anti-immigration stance, her pro-death penalty approach to law and order and most of all her approach to climate change.

It's her threat to suspend climate change legislation that has particularly smarted the current governor. He's been passionate about the need to tackle climate change and reduce our emissions and, in difficult fiscal circumstances, he has tried to carve out a strong reputation on the subject. This put him at odds with many in the party and saw the oil industry lobby hard against his proposals, a fight which, to his credit, he won. Now Whitman threatens to undo all the fruits of what was a colossal political fight.

It's no wonder Schwarzenegger is unwilling to leap to endorse her, and has even started saying nice things about the Democratic candidate. Could he really be preparing to endorse the opposition in order to save his legacy?

She will be facing a heavy weight opponent in former Democratic governor Jerry Brown (who was nick named "Governor Moonbeam" for his supposedly left-liberal approach). His main claim to fame as far as I'm concerned is that The Dead Kennedys ditty "California Uber Alles" is actually sung from the fictionalised perspective of Jerry Brown during his time in office. How cool is that?

Both Democratic and Republican primaries were evenly matched with 1.7 million people voting in each with Brown the runaway favourite for Democrats (84.1%) and Whitman more controversial among Republicans (64.2%).

Of course she still won a strong victory over her Republican opponents, which is a good job seeing as she used $80 million dollars of her own money just to secure the nomination, a sum which exceeds the combined spend of Republicans and Democrats on the entire 2006 Gubernatorial race. Astonishing.

Schwarzenegger spoke to the Washington Post telling them that "You're assuming I'm going to endorse the Republican". The Post went on;

"The governor did say he could change his mind "and endorse someone 14 days out. I don't know." ... he pulls back a little and suggests it's likely he would endorse Whitman -- if he endorses, that is. But he also said in the session with the editorial board that Brown had done some good things and some bad things during his two terms as governor. Schwarzenegger didn't elaborate, but the mere fact that he had a nugget of niceness for the Democrat two days into the general election is stunning. I can't wait to see how the party elders in California and here in Washington react to this."
Of course he may well end up endorsing his Republican successor, but can you imagine that happening here? A Labour or Tory MP explicitly refusing to endorse fellow party members standing for election. It speaks to the growing split in the US right between a vocal and, frankly, moronic Palinite movement and more traditional Republicans who are often less theological in their approach to climate change, gay marriage and not bombing foreigners.

The Democrats have got a good chance of beating Whitman who is likely to polarise Republicans without winning many friends in the Democrat camp, but Whitman still has her billion dollar fortune to draw on so if they want to save California's climate legislation they better make sure they take her seriously.

Tweet of the day

Spotted this one earlier which kind of summed it up for me.

mrmarksteel Great that Diane Abbott's in leadership contest for variety - black, female and left-wing. If only she wasn't also fucking hopeless.
It's going to be a long old Labour leadership contest, with the winner decided at the end of September, so my advice is.... don't get too excited too soon. It's a marathon not a sprint.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Dutch election: far right gains

The Dutch election yesterday saw an increasing polarisation of society and a dangerous shift that benefits the far right.

Although the right only moved forwards by 3 representatives (now 83 out of 150 in total) this is made up from five parties and there was a shift inside the right vote away from the more moderate Christian democrats, with the most shocking gains being made by Geert Wilders 'Party for Freedom' who went from 9 to 24 seats in one fell swoop making them the third largest party.

This is extremely worrying as the Party for Freedom is unashamedly anti-Muslim and anti-immigration. the fact that the three explicitly Christian parties all lost seats to the other two parties of the right might indicate a more general growing secularism, opposing both Islam and other religions, but this should not obscure the fact that Wilders' party is a clearly racist organisation, however they like to dress up their proposals.

The Labour Party and Socialist Party between them lost thirteen seats (3 and 10 respectively), which mainly appear to have been lost to the liberal Democrats 66 (who went from 3 to 10 seats) and the Green Left (who went from 7 to 10 seats).

I've put together this little chart of the new political make up of the Dutch House of Representatives, which I hope is helpful. Click on it to enlarge.


Quick explanation of chart:

The Party for Freedom is in black and the centre right parties in blue. The Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), Christian Union and Reformed Political Party are all Christian parties who all lost vote share to the far right and the more secular VVD.

I've put Democrats 66 in yellow and in the middle although I'm aware that politically this is slightly more complex and they could well go in with the blue team ideologically.

The two center left parties are in red and the Green Left and the Party for Animals (!) in green. The fact I've placed the animal people on the far left does not denote that they are a bunch of commies, I just didn't know where else to put them, and next to the Greens seemed sensible.

Bits and bobs

  • Bright Green Scotland has a round up of union news.

  • War on Want has an interesting campaign against supermarkets.

  • NCADC, the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns has cleaned up their web site.

  • People and Planet have published their university Green league table.

  • Odds tracker can't spell Oona, but other than that they predict the next London Mayor.

  • Just a reminder that They Work For You will track what your MP is getting up to, or you can even track subjects. It's a great resource, and with all these new MPs there may well be people, like Caroline Lucas, that you'll want to follow.

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

King Livingstone

Good to see that Diane Abbott is on the ballot paper for Labour leader after a number of MPs who wont be voting for her backed her candidacy, in order to ensure that the contest was not simply between white men in suits. They may well get a shock if she does well though, but tough.

However, while the hoo ha continues about whether someone left of the center gets to lose the leadership to the Miliband franchise there is a far more important selection taking place inside of Labour. Namely, who is their best shot at winning the London Mayoralty where, in contrast to the national picture, it is the left who are ensconced in the arms of the establishment and the right who are the plucky outsiders raring to put some 'fresh ideas'.


As things stand right now it's going to be a Oona King vs Ken Livingstone stand-off with the winner to be decided at the Labour caber tossing contest late September. I'm interested not just because I'm a nosy beggar, but also because a) I live in London and so I'm curious as to who hopes to rule over me and b) we get a second preference in the Mayorals which, last time round, the Green Party officially recommended using for the Labour candidate.

This was the first time that the Greens had made a public recommendation on the second preference vote (you can see some of the joint leaflets in this campaign pic from 2008) and, while I know from first hand experience it made some sort of difference, it's not something that we gave away easily.

If Labour select Ken I'm confident we'll repeat that happy experience, but if they select some bomb loving politician-for-the-sake-of-it then I doubt London Greens would be shy about publicly critiquing the lack of progressive credentials in Labour candidate and we may well have a less supportive stance.

The two hopefuls are like chalk and cheese in many ways. King spent her time in Parliament as an ultra-loyal speak your policy machine while Livingstone has been a thorn in Labour's side for decades.

King has always been eminently ignorable and defeatable while Livingstone is a formidable customer, who walks the walk and is able to defeat real opponents both internal and external. He took on all comers, including Labour's Frank Dobson, to win the Mayoralty in the first place. His medal cabinet is unique in British politics, King on the other hand is "fresh" and essentially untested.

Labour MP David Lammy is backing Ken saying that "Above all, we need a political heavyweight. In 2012 the euphoria of the Olympics may well be tempered by the harsh realities of everyday life."

GMB union leader Paul Kenny is backing Ken saying “I am totally confident that with Ken elected as London Mayor in 2012 our transport, social housing and employment needs will once again receive the attention that London demands.”

Alternatively Oona says of her candidacy that "We can’t kid ourselves that we can beat Boris Johnson by using the same rhetoric or policy platform that failed last time. We need fresh new ideas. We need an honest conversation with London based on our values and aspirations – that’s what this site and my candidacy is about."

It's nice to hear she's going to single-handedly overturn Labour's entire policy platform, but her website gives little indication of in what way she intends to this. Does she mean she's going to reverse policy on transport and the congestion charge? Will she issue all Brazilians with bullet proof vests on the tube? What?

You see, for me, this selling point of freshness (and its related diversity) just doesn't work. Oona's politics aren't fresh at all. In the context of British politics it's always been Ken who has brought forward strong, new ideas and he continues to explore new ways of concretely improving London. Fresh and empty are not synonymous with each other.

Londoners like outsiders and, in general, I think they like the way Ken clearly loves the city. He's given his heart and soul to it for forty years or more. Where's Oona been in the five years she was out of Parliament? She just doesn't have the political grit required for the job as far as I can see and I suspect most people will see her candidacy as fuelled by personal ambition in a way quite different from Ken's ambitions that have always been tied to taking the hard road in politics.

The final argument against Ken is that he lost the last election because Londoners were 'sick off him' and that he was 'rejected' by London, but the facts tell a very different story. Year on year more Londoners voted for Ken at each successive election, despite the fact that 2008 saw Labour's vote slump across the rest of the country - something that was astounding feat for a Labour candidate.


Ken didn't lose the election Boris Johnson won it, taking Steven Norris' 28% in 2004 and turning it into a whopping 42% of the vote. Anyone who's going to overturn that level of support, particularly when Boris has not horrified most voters in the way he has us lefty politicos has got to have a proven track record of winning hard battles. Oona does not have that.

It's not that the Greens agree with Ken all the time, far from it, but he's a serious politician who we can work with on friendly terms and with whom we genuinely do share a great deal of political ground. The same cannot be said for King whose track record of coalition building does not extend beyond the Iraq invasion.

It's good that there's a choice and quite rightly I don't get a vote in Labour's selection process, but I will get a say in whether the Greens recommend a second preference for Labour in 2012 and that rests entirely on who they pick as their candidate.

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

What's going on (naked edition)

Why don't people just keep their clothes on for heaven's sake. Oh well.

If you're at a loose end you might want to take your loose ends on the World Naked Bike Ride which meets at 3pm Saturday 12th June by the Achilles Statue in Hyde Park, which is near Hyde Park Corner tube.

You don't need to be naked to go, but it only seems polite.

If all this peace and love is not to your liking you might like to take part in giving the master race a piece of your mind. The UAF and others are organising against the racist EDL marching through Tower Hamlets. This Sunday (13th) at 7pm there is a rally at London Muslim Centre, 46 Whitechapel Road, London E1 1JX and then next week on Sunday 20 June, Assemble 11am, Stepney Green Park, march to Altab Ali Park, Whitechapel.

Then there's the question of the health service, you might like to go to the Keep Our NHS Public AGM, Saturday 12th June 10 for 11am, Somers Town Community Centre, Ossulston St, NW1; Link

Sadly, at the same time is the COMPASS "A New Hope" Annual conference which has a range of blinding speakers at it. Saturday 12th June, Institute of Education, lots of speakers including Caroline Lucas, Hilary Wainwright, Paul Mason, loads more.

If sitting in stuffy rooms is your thing then there are even more conferences the week after. The pick of these would be the Morning Star Conference, Saturday 19th June from 10am Bob Crow, George Galloway and co. Congress House.

Alternatively you might like to assist the democratisation of this backward little island with the good people from Take Back Parliament. On Sunday 13th June at 2pm there will be a democracy picnic and flower laying. Victoria Tower Gardens, Adjacent to Parliament, London, SW1A 0AA

Thinking further ahead on Saturday 10th July at 2 p.m. there will be a protest against nuclear waste being transported through London. Victoria Park, Cadogan Gate entrance, Cadogan Terrace, E9. Nearest station Hackney Wick, March to Stratford Station.

Monday, June 07, 2010

Beautiful urban foxes

There's a mini-tabloid storm brewing against urban foxes because, apparently, a fox wandered into someone's home bit a couple of kids for kicks and then wandered off again. The papers do not record whether the fox's friends filmed the incident on their mobile phones, or whether the fox had arrived in London from Poland in a secret compartment in a lorry.

Whatever the ins and outs of the case, and let's assume it's all true, this would make it an extremely rare occurrence.

The Guardian tells us that "Vulpes vulpes has long fascinated and repelled us", which is news to me. Who is this "us" who have long been "repelled" by beautiful urban foxes? Bed wetting Guardian journalists no doubt.

The article ends with a list of ways of "off foxing the fox" which are basically a number of ways of moving the fox into your neighbour's garden.

Thankfully the Guardian's eco-wing has a better article by the sainted Terry Nutkins which a) casts doubt on whether this was a fox at all and b) reminds us that foxes not go out of their way to harm humans, the harm is purely a one-way process. Well worth a read.

The BBC reports that the authorities went and found a fox and killed it in retaliation but they also quote a fox expert, John Bryant, who says that a fox attack of this kind makes no sense what-so-ever.

Whatever really happened in this case I'm concerned that, in typical knee jerk fashion, we may be facing a reprisal fox cull which will make no one any the safer but do yet more to purge our cities of some of its most delightful inhabitants.

n.b. I wondered whether foxes ate rats in order for me to make a case that they were useful, but wikipedia seems to think they mainly eat insects and worms, but whether we can trust this source or not I don't know as it doesn't even mention their main diet, discarded kebabs.

Six blogs of interest

Half a dozen blogs I've not linked to previously.

Sunday, June 06, 2010

Sunday selection

  • It appears that industry lobbyists helped draw up the Food Standard Agency's report on GM. That was helpful of them. Guardian.

  • Are the media institutionally biased in favour of Israel? Splintered Sunrise takes a look.

  • Questions about how to response to The English Defense League continue. Bob from Brockley has some thoughts.

  • The war film that shocked Denmark. Guardian (again).

  • Coalition reneges on plans to scrap NHS data base. Independent.

  • It seems that the UK's religious education has been officially criticised as 'inadequate' as one in five teachers were "unsure of what they were trying to achieve in the subject". Sounds like healthy skepticism to me. BBC.

Saturday, June 05, 2010

Those right-wing Greens

There's nothing particularly left-wing about caring about the environment. I know plenty of Tories who are passionate about tackling climate change for instance. And when I say plenty I mean two, but I've no reason to doubt their sincerity. In fact conservationism, the movements to preserve the lesser spotted voles of Dingle Wood and chums, has often been the preserve of the more conservative elements of society.

The Charter of the Global Greens sees Green Party politics as something far wider than simply caring about the environment. The six core strands are "Ecological Wisdom, Social Justice, Participatory Democracy, Nonviolence, Sustainability, Respect for Diversity" which looks to four movements; "the peace movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the labour movement."

In other words the politics of the Green Parties around the world are not just about single issue campaigning, there is a specific and integrated political philosophy even if, like all parties, this is often realised in very different ways in different countries.

Internationally each Green Party has a unique history as well as common political ground.

In Holland the franchise is called the Green Left and was formed in 1989 by a merger of the Communist Party of the Netherlands, Pacifist Socialist Party, the Political Party of Radicals and the Evangelical People's Party. In Denmark the Green sister party is the Socialistisk Folkeparti, or Socialist People's Party, a party formed decades ago by leading Communist Party members who'd been expelled for opposing the crushing of the Hungarian revolution in 1956.

These are left parties very comfortably nestled in the international brotherhood of tree huggers.

Ireland: Green suicide

Other parties have a more "deep green" history. The Irish Greens tell us that they were the brainchild, in 1981, of Christopher Fettes (right) who was "[a]ctive in the Vegetarian Society, the Esperanto movement and Friends of the Earth".

It's just speculation on my part but it may be that this eclectic collection of nice interests were not a strong enough foundation on which to stand when they were given the opportunity to prop up a discredited right-wing government without gaining any significant policy concessions.

Indeed the fact that they got into bed with Fianna Fáil at all when their leader at the time had gone into the election saying that he would not lead the party into such a coalition (he resigned in order to keep his word) was not just an electoral error of judgment it was, in my view, an unprincipled placing of seats at the table of government before the political purpose of the Green Party.

They placed the interests of the party above fighting for what they believed in. As one ex-member put it;
It has been painful, then, to observe the conduct of the Greens since they joined a coalition government with Fianna Fáil, Ireland's largest party, in 2007. Principles once regarded as sacrosanct have been abandoned, as the Greens have morphed from the party of education and equality into one that accepts cutbacks for schools, bailouts for feckless bankers and "civil partnerships" that deny gays and lesbians the same rights as heterosexuals.
That is not to say that the Irish Greens leap on each and every opportunity to steer right, far from it. John Gormley's Parliamentary speech on the Gaza flotilla this week is powerful stuff, for example, but you can't ignore the fact that the Irish Greens have embraced the kind of right-wing economic policies of cuts and privatisation that would make any self-respecting socialist's hair curl.

By seperating its own interests from the movements in which it should have been based the Greens in Ireland not only threw away their own political compass they discarded any reason for people to actually vote for them. They were heftily punished in last year's European and council elections more than halving their vote and seeing their representation slashed. You can't posture as a progressive force while selling your soul for a seat at the big man's table.

Czech mates chosen poorly

The Irish Greens are not alone in finding themselves out in the cold after unwise coalitions with the right. Czech Green leader Ondrej Liska, right, must know how they feel.

The Czech Greens had just started to make electoral headway achieving 6.3% in the 2006 elections, winning 6 of 200 Parliamentary seats. However, they used those votes to go into government with two right-wing parties, the Civic Democrats and the Christian Democrats, taking the education and environment ministries.

This year, after three years of association with corruption, mismanagement and instability, the Greens received just over a third of their previous vote and didn't win a single seat. In a year when all the parties of the establishment were being punished new and radical parties made great headway - the Greens found themselves on the wrong side of that division crashing and burning as a party of the stale elites rather than rising like the new political stars offering a new political direction, sadly further to the right.

For a party that's meant to be looking to the long term rather than the short termist PR approach of the old politics these are poor decisions. The argument may be that you have to take these opportunities in order to be 'influential' but in reality if you want to be an influential political force for the next twenty years going into the first coalition that comes your way and getting completely wiped out isn't wise.

In fairness to these parties it's not that they are natural parties of the right but that they weren't politically astute enough to see the traps and too opportunist to care that they were committing to fatally compromise a radical vision to a conservative ungreen future where a few Ministers wear sandals.

German examples

My last example, for sake of brevity (!) will be from Germany. Die Grünen is one of the largest Green Parties in the world and has its roots in the environmental, anti-nuclear and peace movements. Just to show that Green parties do not always go into coalition with the centre right in 1998 they went into a Red-Green coalition with the Social Democratic Party (SPD).

Certainly this is not unusual. In France the coalition partners of choice are the Socialist Party, in Italy the Greens were an ultra-left part of the Prodi cabinet and when the coalition fell apart they joined forces with the hard left to contest the next elections, just as in Portugal the Greens there are all but merged with ex-Communist Party types.

That does not mean all went well, as before the ink was dry on the coalition deal we saw the launch of the Kosovan war courtesy of Mr Blair and Mr Clinton. The German government, including its bright and shiny Green Ministers supported the bombing. Understandably many previous supporters were disgusted and left the party. However whilst their vote dipped temporarily in the long term they were able to balance pragmatism with gaining electoral support.

The Greens also found the coalition difficult terrain to negotiate and many critics feel they were too ready to concede to the pro-business agenda of the SPD and could have, or should have, pushed for the dismantling of nuclear power stations more vigorously - it's difficult to know what was possible within the confines of the alliance but what is clear is that the experience has left the German Greens with burned fingers and on a local level some areas have begun to consider center-right coalition partners.

This is a process that's still in motion and hotly contested within the German party. Just as the leftist Die Linke has its different wings, the Greens have not become entirely consumed by either the respectability of government nor the logic of compromise that define the Irish and Czech experience, which may account for their record breaking representation in the Bundestag (right), but these tendencies exist and have real influence.

Green shoots and roots

The three very different examples I've given of Green Parties that leaned to the right share a number of factors. First, they were all in a strong enough position to become national players. Second, that they took the right fork in the road in a way that the Greens in Finland, Italy and Australia, for example, have not in similar situations. Third, these coalitions tend to be marriages of convenience rather than love. Fourth, that in each case it threw the party in question into a turmoil that only the Germans were able to survive meaningfully.

This could be because Green voters will forgive coalitions with Labour but not the Tories. Whatever the views of specific Green politicians the voting demographic of the Green Party is overwhelming to the left, pro-immigration, anti-war, and anti-privatisation.

While I'm not against coalitions in principle I do think there are two questions that should be considered. Are you strong enough to win concessions and do your partners share enough political ground with you. If the answer to either of these questions are no then you're better off fighting to build political support for your ideas outside the cabinet than trying to win ground inside of it.

I think it's a reasonable conclusion to say that in none of these cases were the Greens parties of the right, but the choices that they made in order to win government power made them indistinguishable from the parties of the right. It's also reasonable to say that all Green Parties have the same tendencies and currents within them that could pull them to the left or right.

That means that in Leeds when the Green councillors were in a position to forge alliances they have got into bed with the Tories and are now sleeping with Labour, the trollops. In other areas, like Lewisham, when offered a coalition with Labour in 2006 they refused in order to maintain political independence.

My tentative conclusions

In each of these cases I believe the fatal flaw was an inadequate relationship to the movements on which Green politics is supposed to be based which allowed party bigwigs to see their political decisions as boardroom maneuvers rather than a battle for a sustainable future. In other words they took a managerial approach to politics and this naturally pulled them to the right.

It's not an inevitable condition of government, but it is an ever present force. The Scottish Greens, for example, were right to keep an arms length approach to the SNP while refusing to pull the government down. Taking the decision to support or oppose on a case by case basis may not always reap rewards but over time the ability to take an independent line at least allows for the possibility of growth regardless of the fortunes of the ruling party.

In short all parties are effected by both the specific circumstances of the country they are based in and the repercussions of the decisions that they take. There is no such thing as an abstract political philosophy immune from the trials and tribulations of the world. The best we can do is arm ourselves with the facts and ensure we learn from them.

Friday, June 04, 2010

Saturday's national demonstration

Tomorrow there will be a national demonstration against the actions of the Israeli government called by a number of anti-war, Muslim and solidarity organisations. If you can get to it, I'd encourage you to attend.

The actions against the blockade busting flotilla are widely seen as a crime and this is a moment of opportunity to help lift the sanctions against Gaza and free all of those unjustly imprisoned by the Israeli state.

London:
Assemble at 1.30 pm outside Downing Street and the demonstration will head to the Israeli embassy.

Edinburgh:
Assemble at 2pm at the Mound.

There are probably other local demos across the country (and also internationally, like the Paris demo which starts at the Place de la Bastille saturday 3pm) for those who cannot make the event in London. Leave a comment if you want to let people know about it.

It's important that we keep up international solidarity in order to ensure that Israel pulls its head back in. Yesterday in the Israeli Parliament one Arab MP, Haneen Zuabi, was attacked on Parliament floor and has recieved numerous death threats for her support for the flotilla.

I'll try to keep up with tracking some of the local events so feel free to keep me up to date so I can big up your events. You might also like to encourage your MP to sign EDM 127 on the flotilla attack.

Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Eco-Miscellany

  • The Morning Star looks at problems in the tar sands.

  • The BBC advocates 'citizen science' to save birds.

  • Michael Greenwall discovers you can bet on which animals go extinct first.

  • The Guardian reports on a resignation from the food standards watchdog over 'GM propaganda'.

  • The Australian reports on extraordinary legislation passed in Papua New Guinea that protects companies from litigation on environmental destruction.

  • The Caledonian Mercury discovers that after 25 years a banned pesticide is still causing havoc with the Scottish environment.

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

Protest Israel's Pirate State: this Saturday

This Saturday in London there is a national demonstration called by Stop the War, CND, PCS and others to protest against the actions of the Israeli state in their attack on the aid convey yesterday. There has been an incredible surge of protests across the world and on every continent against the murderous actions of the Israeli commandos.

Assemble: 1.30 pm at Downing Street and the march will go to the Israeli embassy.

Despite the usual thick skinned claims from the Israeli government many of its friends are finding it difficult to defend this action. For instance Harry Place, a blog pretty much dedicated to attacking the left and defending Israel, does its best to defend the actions but has to admit that;

"there were disastrous and self-defeating strategic and tactical failures on the Israeli side. Once again, the Israeli government has failed to grasp that just because they may have the right to do something doesn’t mean it’s always wise to do it. Allowing the ships to dock in Gaza, unload their cargo and be on their way– as the Israelis have done in the recent past– might have provided some minimal aid and comfort to Hamas, but nothing like the propaganda coup that yesterday’s events did.... Almost everything Israel does these days seems plodding and obvious and designed to make it look like the villain."
Tory blogger Iain Dale says;
"whatever propensities I have to support Israel, the key point which makes me critical of this incident is this. If a peace flotilla had been making its way to the Iranian coast and it had been boarded by the Revolutionary Guard and people had been shot dead, I and many other supporters of Israel would be spitting blood in outrage. So that's why I can't man the barricades and automatically jump to Israel's defence here. Sometimes Israel makes life very difficult for even its most ardent supporters."
Worst of all we have this from the Telegraph's executive foreign editor, a man who Israel should be able to rely on in even the worst crisis;
"Israel has developed a worrying habit of conducting itself in a way that even its friends find hard to defend... Israel’s inept handling of the affair, which has resulted with the deaths of as many as 19 people, it has turned it into a national disaster. There were many methods the Israeli military could have used to prevent the flotilla reaching Gaza without loss of life. But they used a tactic that was bound to cause provocation, and are now paying the cost."
When even Israel's friends are casting doubt over their actions you know there is an opportunity to help gain some justice for the Palestinian people.