Leading questions

One of the most hotly contested questions at the coming Green Party conference will be that of whether to have a leader(s). It's a question that has consistently arisen over the last few years and has very entrenched positions on both sides.

The motion in question calls for a binding ballot of the membership to once and for all settle the argument, there's even a petition for it here and Another Green World puts the other side here. A quick glance down the names on the first petition will reveal a) some silly entries and b) that signatories come from what could crudely be described as from both the left and right of the party.

The debate, in my opinion, is much more about attitudes towards elections than necessarily how progressive / reactionary a particular member is. As the petition says "we believe that the use of the term leader is a helpful and appropriate tool in helping us convince the public of the urgent need for a green society and a green world" In other words it's a tactical consideration and should be considered as such.

My natural inclination is to have some form of collective, democratically elected (and therefore accountable) body rather than invest too much prestige in one or two people. For instance I've spoken about the "leaders" of the anti-war movement here and here. However, I've got an open mind on the question and will be interested to see the arguments (and behaviour) on both sides of the debate.

As I understand it one of the main reasons for pushing the idea of (co)leader(s) is that there is a consistent confusion on the part of the press and the public over the current terms principal speakers, terms deliberately designed to promote the idea of an open and pluralist party. I don't know how significant that is and it's easy to find a scape goat for how little press minority parties get, but there may well be something in it.

There are a number of hostile amendments to the leadership motion, which as always makes me slightly tetchy. These include not bringing in the system until the Greens have three MPs, delaying the ballot to just before a possible general election, or a clause stating that someone has to have been in the party for eight or ten years before they can stand for the position, which reeks of contempt for the members of the party. There are also some useful additions and amendments, which I may or may not vote for, but clearly have a far more constructive intent.

There is an amendment, for instance, about the election for leader being every two years and in the intervening year having a vote of confidence. I'm not happy about this at all - I mean it's far more damaging for the members to vote non-confidence in their leaders than it is for them to simply select someone new. The press could portray, for instance, Derek's election as principal speaker as a sign that the Greens are moving to the left, whilst if we'd have had to no confidence Keith Taylor first they could portray the whole thing as the Greens falling apart, which we weren't. Personally I think that amendment would be a well intentioned mistake were we to pass it.

There's also an amendment calling for the introduction of Emmeline Pankhurst as an inspirational figure - surely that should be Sylvia? Emmaline supported the First World War and encouraged the giving out of white feathers to young men who weren't eager to die for the British Empire, apparently coming up with the natty slogan "intern them all". Which actually makes her the enemy and not very inspirational. I digress.

Whatever way the vote goes I hope the debate is conducted fraternally and seriously - with passion but without rancour. As I say I'm currently leaning towards opposing the motion - but as it's intent is for a ballot of the membership rather than jumping straight to have a leader then I'm very much open to the idea of a full and proper discussion in the party which perhaps ends this rather divisive topic, at least for the time being.

Things I'm not blogging about today

1. Junior Doctors and the NHS
2. Phone in polls (Blue Peter in particular)
3. The Eurovision song contest
4. Blair's appearance on comic relief.
5. John McDonnell potentially getting enough nominations to stand for Labour Leader.
6. St Patrick's Day
7. Zimbabwe's approach to democracy
8. Sian Berry as the Green London Mayoral candidate
9. The fact I can't be bothered to do a proper blog entry at the moment.

Caught in the vice

Readers outside of the Eastern region may be unaware that the Ipswich police have begun a "crack down" on prostitution in Ipswich involving the heavier use of council and police powers against anyone involved in the "industry" (for instance this).

Last night's local news featured a Labour councillor banging on at length on how he wished to eradicate all prostitution from Ipswich, for good. Good luck mate, although you may have to remove all the human inhabitants first to achieve that end. In fact it is not an insignificant flaw in the plan that what they hope to achieve cannot be achieved, as time will show.

The delusional councillor, David Ellesmere, said this was a "once in a lifetime" opportunity to rid the town of prostitution once and for all. He told the EADT "We've got to do as much as we can to help these women out of these difficult circumstances but if they have received the help and are still going out on the streets then you have got to look at Asbos." Is this a case of "You've had your biscuit now fuck off"?

The East Anglian Daily Times describes how the police and the council are planning the "biggest ever crackdown on prostitution". The plans include increased use of ASBOs, increasing use of new and existing CCTV cameras and focused police presence in areas associated with curb crawling.

Spokeswoman for the English Collective of Prostitutes Cari Mitchell (who had a long, excellent interview on the local news last night) told the EADT "We are horrified the authorities want to introduce a crackdown that has been shown to force women underground and make them more vulnerable to attack. Have no lessons be learned?"

The new measures have already seen sex workers rely increasingly on making contacts via mobile phones and taking less care and time over assessing clients before getting into their cars. Even if the crack down was only against the clients (which it isn't) it would still involve prostitutes having to take greater risks with their own safety in order to continue to work. As with so many such righteous crusades the effects so far have been to further marginalise some of the most vulnerable people in society at no discernable benefit to anyone.

The Suffolk Evening Star reports that local Reverend Andrew Dotchi has said that the criminalisation of sex workers does more harm than good. "It is very easy to say 'get the girls off the streets and you will solve the problem' but the fact remains that there are women in the town with poverty and abuse problems and there needs to be a much more intensive case work approach with women to help them...

"It is all very well to give someone an anti-social behaviour order or lock them away for six months but then their children go into care and we know that the majority of those on the fringes of society come from care. Over the years if you criminalise street workers and habitual drug users you perpetuate the problem and pass it on to the next generation.”

Attempts to "clean up" areas in this way never result in an overall improvement in society. They simply end up moving the workers elsewhere (like Norwich) or pushing the trade into more dangerous avenues. Hardly a satisfactory outcome.

One more reason why the unions shouldn't give money to Labour

One of UNISON's policies is an opposition to Trident. Another one of their policies is that if they sponsor MPs they get to influence policy and support MPs that will support the things the union believes in in Parliament.

Some UNISON sponsored MP's did vote with UNISON policy. They are;

Alan Simpson, Albert Owen, David Drew, David Heyes, Diane Abbott, Fabian Hamilton, Harry Cohen, Jeremy Corbyn, Jim Devine, Joan Walley, John McDonnell, Katy Clark, Kelvin Hopkins, Michael Meacher, Marsha Singh, Mike Wood, Paul Truswell and Richard Burden.

18 MPs fine and true.

Other UNISON sponsored MPs voted the wrong way;

Adam Ingram, Alan Whitehead, Andrew MacKinlay, Andrew Reed, Andy Burnham, Angela Eagle , Anne Moffat , Ben Chapman, Brian Donohoe, Charlotte Atkins, Dan Norris, David Anderson, David Blunkett, David Borrow, David Taylor, Dawn Primarolo, Des Browne, Diana Johnson, Eric Joyce, Fiona Mactaggart, George Mudie, Gerry Sutcliffe, Gilly Merron, Greg Pope, Hazel Blears, Helen Jones, Jane Kennedy, Jonathan Shaw, Judy Mallaber, Keith Vaz, Laura Moffatt, Linda Gilroy, Lyn Brown, Martin Salter, Mary Creagh, Meg Munn, Paddy Tipping, Patrick Hall, Sadiq Khan, Sharon Hodgson, Stephen Byers, Stephen Hepburn and Terry Rooney.

43 MPs squalid and vile.

Not good enough, not good enough at all. That's union members money going to support these people. And it's not like this is an aberration for most of them. David Blunkett, Keith Vaz, Hazel Blears, Stephen Byers... I mean aren't these the down the line enemies of public service workers?

UNISON (my union incidentally) needs to take a leaf out of the RMT's book who sponsor more Labour MPs now, after their expulsion from the party, than before - and now they actually get to support parliamentarians who support the aims of the union. That means no money for Prescott.

Unions, and the workers they represent, need a political voice and support on a selected basis for MPs and prospective MPs from a number of different parties is a very good idea. Support for the government come fair wind or foul is not. The point of political influence is for the union to influence legislation to the benefit of working people, not for the government to influence the union not to step out of line.

Hat tip: union futures

Cough, cough

Who'd have thought you could get pneumonia from a fire? It's one of those conditions that I associate as being like a terrible, even fatally bad, flu - but of course you can, as I can testify.

Due to great skill and cunning I managed to gulp down huge amounts of smoke on Saturday night and have been rather poorly ever since. I was going to the doctor's yesterday anyway so I mentioned it in passing. She asked me to take my shirt off (any excuse these people) and after a few seconds listening to my lungs I was given the rather surprising news and a slip of paper for Amoxicillin.

I'm looking on the bright side as always, it's a great excuse for all the things I haven't done. Pneumonia is one of those reasons you can give that don't usually get the reply "But can you still come leafleting tomorrow morning?" or "So *when* are you going to help me on my allotment then?" Although I must be careful not to milk it.

The real news is the other thing the doc told me about my much needed specialist appointment. Waiting list at Addenbrokes approx 52 weeks... that's, like, years! Just to see someone!

New Labour... I'm not happy about this "best year ever" thing. Not happy at all. It's not like you've even got pneumonia, which would at least have been an acceptable reason.

Words cannot express my... my... hmmm

I think it's fair to say that words cannot express the rage I feel over this ruling. Baha Mousa, 26, died whilst under arrest and under the questioning of six British soldiers. His body was found to have 93 separate injuries. The military court cleared five of them of all charges. The only soldier deemed to be at fault was the one who submitted a guilty plea to inhumane treatment of a prisoner.

As the Independent said (here) "The case... led to the disclosure that the Army high command had sanctioned brutal abuse of prisoners."

"The court martial heard that the detainees were beaten with bars, kicked, starved and forced to drink their own urine. They were kept hooded with hessian sacks in temperatures of 60C, made to maintain a stress position for hours and deprived of sleep. After 36 hours Baha Musa died, with 93 injuries to his body."

The Guardian notes that "Phil Shiner, the lawyer representing the family of Baha Mousa... said: "Mr Justice McKinnon found that the evidence was clear that these injuries were 'sustained as a result of numerous assaults over 36 hours by unidentified persons'. He said 'none of those soldiers has been charged with any offence simply because there is no evidence against them as a result of a more or less obvious closing of ranks'. It was in the words of one soldier witness a 'free for all'. It appears to be nothing less than systematic punishment on behalf of 1 QLR in the mistaken belief that these Iraqis were responsible for the death of one of the battalion."

No one gives evidence = innocence? The rules say we can beat a man to death with impunity so that makes it okay? I really don't think so...

Remember the Malvinas

Hola fellow Latin America followers. I've just recieved notice of this event, unfortunately at the weekend so I can't go but others may well be interested.

* Remembering the Malvinas in Argentine Literature and Film *

Saturday 17 March 9am-5pm at Stewart House, 32 Russell Square, London WC1

A one-day workshop featuring readings, papers and screenings to consider cultural representations of the Malvinas conflict, in the year of its 25th anniversary. Co-organised by Dr Claire Lindsay (UCL), Dr Joanna Page (U. of Cambridge) and Dr Fernanda Peñaloza (U. of Manchester).

The event is open to all those with an interest in Argentine cultural representations of the Malvinas war, which is the theme of this particular event. We would ask participants to bear in mind that our purpose is to consider and debate cultural representations, rather than issues relating to sovereignty.

There is no cost for participation or for tea/coffee and the wine reception. Lunch is not provided, plenty of cafés and restaurants in the locality.

PROGRAMME

9.30-10.00 am Registration

10.00-10.40 am Nick Caistor, journalist and translator: The Blind leading the Snowblind (paper to include a reading from Malvinas Requiem, Nick Caistor's translation of Los pichiciegos, forthcoming with Serpent's Tail)

10.40-11.20 am Carlos Gamerro, writer, translator and critic: ¿Islas de mierda, llenas de pingüinos' (Cortázar)?: Imagining the Malvinas in fact and fiction (paper to include a reading from Las islas in Spanish)

11.50-12.45 pm Professor Bernard McGuirk, U. of Nottingham: It Breaks Two to Tangle: Political Cartoons of the Falklands-Malvinas Conflict.

2.15-3.30 pm Dr Joanna Page, University of Cambridge & Dr Claire Lindsay, University College London. Excerpts to be screened from Los chicos de la guerra (Bebe Kamín, 1984), La deuda interna (Miguel Pereira, 1988), Fuckland (José Luis Marqués, 2000) and Iluminados por el fuego (Tristán Bauer, 2005), with critical introductions to each film

3.30-4.00 pm: Dr Jens Andermann, Birkbeck College, University of London: Response (followed by general discussion)

4.20-5.00 pm Roundtable: Representations of the Malvinas in Argentine literature and film: Dr Fernanda Peñaloza, U. of Manchester; Dr Geoffrey Kantaris, U. of Cambridge; Dr Claire Lindsay, U. College London; Professor Bernard McGuirk, University of Nottingham; Dr Joanna Page, U. of Cambridge

5.00 pm Wine reception

If you go, let me know how it went. Particularly the wine.

Oh, and as an after thought if you're a Londoner there is some excellent Cuban Hip Hop touring the country at the moment with two leading Cuban groups Havana OBSESIÓN & LOS PAISANOS.

I got to see them in Cambridge for £2 but you'll have to fork out £10/£8 on Friday the 16th at ULU on Malet Street. If you need more details they're here. It's all good stuff.

Bolivia polls

Jim Shultz points to new polls out in Bolivia showing Morales has achieved a significant level of support.

Despite everything the backing for Morales stands at 64% (compared to 29% for Bush by US citizens) and this approval rating reaches as high as 91% in areas like El Alto. Just 32% disapprove of Morales.

More importantly, to my mind, is that 70% of Bolivians believe that the country is now less corrupt than it was a year ago, one of the key areas that the Morales government has been very keen to counter.

It's interesting to speculate what these figures might actually mean on the ground but it's pretty clear the right have not been making any headway with their ultra-militant behaviour of late.

Lord Giddens speaks

My bete noir and subject of my incredibly tedious university dissertation, Anthony Giddens, has an interesting piece on Comment is Free today about the pending debate and vote in the House of Lords about the reform of the House of Lords.

Giddens feels pessimistic about the chances of a majority of the Lords supporting anything except a wholly appointed House but although he is clearly in favour of reform he still doesn't want to go the whole hog and have a 100% elected chamber. It's these arguments, about holding back, I want to quickly address here today.

I think he is essentially making three points.

Firstly that a House of appointees has a range of expertise to scrutinise legislation that an elected house would not have. Well, to that I'd have to say that the House of Commons is packed full of lawyers, doctors, teachers, academics and people with all kinds of skills. Unfortunately that does not necessarily mean they want to pass worth while legislation.

It seems to me that Parliament as a whole has to debate a range of topics so diverse that it would be impossible to ensure that the necessary expertise was always present. That's why I'd be in favour of allowing "guest speakers" or "expert panels" to make contributions direct to the House as and when required (probably on invitation of a certain number of elected members).

After all if we start to select which experts are necessary and which not then we end up with a second chamber that has bishops in it but no travellers, high court judges but no seafarers. And just perhaps high court judges and bishops will end up voting on subjects to which their expertise (if any) has no bearing but conforms with an out dated and elitist pattern that such types may well adhere to. Witness fox hunting and the equalisation of the age of consent.

Giddens' second argument I find much more perplexing. A fully elected house would have *too much* democratic legitimacy (and therefore be a threat to the House of Commons). Well, I think democratic legitimacy is a good thing, not a bad one. There are plenty of countries around the world that have fully elected second chambers without the sky crashing in around their heads. You don't hear people from these countries saying "If only our second chamber wasn't so... so... legitimate." If we're going to aim to move towards a democratic society let's not leave the mud on our boots from when we were traipsing around in the undemocratic wilderness. Have some courage.

The last point Giddens has to make is probably the one I have most sympathy with. That by making appointments independently it allows the second chamber to step out of the party politics system. However, if it is a diversity of voices that we require perhaps electing the Lords on a regional PR system so the smaller parties and independents with minority support actually get represented in the House.

Indeed, House of Lords reform is also an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone and introduce an electoral method that allows parties with significant electoral support, but no decisive majority in a particular town, to get a voice and thereby help break up the stifling neoliberal consensus.

Floods in Bolivia

The unprecedented heavy rains that have been pouring onto Bolivia as part of El Niño have caused major rivers to burst their banks and left dozens dead and tens of thousands of people severely effected by flooding / homeless. On top of this large amounts of crops and cattle have been destroyed which will have drastic repercussions later in the year.

The governments of Cuba, Venezuela, Peru, Spain, Japan, Italy, US, Argentina, France and Chile have reportedly responded with aid including doctors, helicopters, temporary shelters and food although in a country like Bolivia with its endemic poverty these humanitarian gestures will fall sadly short.

President Evo Morales has stated that "There are countries who, in an excessive, uncontrolled manner, have implemented industrialisation policies and this has affected the planet and is ... destroying the environment and it is the poor countries that have to bear the brunt of it." Many of the poorest countries in the world are going to be the first to bear the brunt of climate change despite being the nations least responsible for green house gas emissions.

Whilst Channel Four mucks around with programmes that pretend these problems are some kind of elaborate hoax real people on the other side of the world are killed, rendered homeless or destitute. I mean, even the US government with all their vested interests not to do so now accept climate change as a reality... doesn't that tell these people something?

Do you feel afraid, anxious or worried? You shouldn't!

I had an interesting hand delivered letter drop through my letterbox today asking me "Do you feel afraid, anxious or worried?" and cordially inviting me to a "neighbourhood meeting" in order to help "turn this area around, turn it into a place we can all enjoy living in and feel safe in."

The police will be at the meeting to ensure no one robs us while we innocently go about our business and members of the council's anti-social behaviour team will also be in attendance, no doubt to ensure we all go through the chair when we speak. No misbehaving you at the back. Yes, you.

I'm all for people in the local area getting together to build something constructive and a bit of community spirit, but seeing as this is the safest town I've ever lived in I find it ludicrous being asked; "Are you fed up with disturbances, violence, theft, abuse, graffiti, littering, noise, "anti-social behaviour" in our area?... Are you concerned for your kids safety?" Well, the answer is no. I'm not fed up with things that either hardly ever happen or are so irrelevant that they don't even impinge on my consciousness.

Of course, like all reasonable people, if I were to see a criminal-type engaged in littering this green and pleasant land I would birch the bugger and be done with him, just as I know you would dear reader, but let's keep things in proportion.

Why am I being sent a letter that is deliberately attempting to make me feel frightened in a low crime area? This is probably the nicest part of Cambridge to live in (although certainly not the poshest). These people need to get out more... but of course they can't because they've triple locked themselves in haven't they, for fear of all the foreigners, students, and gay people loitering around just waiting for an opportunity to make a "disturbance".

A gang of us will be going to this meeting to propose group hugs, relaxing meditation sessions and suggest we don't erect the razor wire just yet to keep out all those imaginary unsavory types. We don't need more police patrols, we don't need any crack downs and we certainly don't need a bunch of council bureaucrats issuing ASBOs like there's no tomorrow.

We need to enjoy ourselves more. We are much more likely to deepen community spirit when we do something positive than if we start peeping out of our windows with our camouflage binoculars and tutting at the local "youth" (who's name is Sam).

I don't want anyone to "turn this area around" because it's the one part of Cambridge that actually has some semblance of community spirit and diversity. I already enjoy living here and like most people feel completely and utterly safe.

All areas have crime but these people look like they are on the war path and are as likely to create divisions in the community as any improvements. They are clearly idiots and must be hugged immediately.

Northern Ireland election

Yesterday's election results from Northern Ireland make interesting reading, despite no major changes.

It's no surprise that the DUP and Sinn Fein came first and second (in that order), both increasing their number of seats, whilst the UUP and SDLP have both slipped back, again.

However, it is on the fringes that all the action is taking place. Dr Kieran Deeny was elected on a platform to save the local hospital and the NI Green Party has made an historic break through gaining its first ever seat.

Brian Wilson, who has been a councillor since 1981, was elected with 9.2% of the vote clenching the fifth of six places in the North Down constituency.

Congratulations should also go to Eammonn McCann of the Socialist Environmental Alliance for his 5.0% share of the vote in very difficult political territory. A vote that would have, in some other wards gained him a seat. Check also Noel, Greenman, and Derek

Defection just down the road

Ahead of the local elections in May, a Labour councillor has decided to defend his seat under the banner of the Green Party. Ernie Goody, Borough and Town councillor for Haverhill East, has been welcomed into the Green Party, which he says better accords with his constituents' interests as well as his own beliefs.

Councillor Goody said: "My recent concerns as a councillor have focussed more and more on green issues, but nationally and locally Labour are not getting on with what's needed. I am excited to have a remit to campaign wholeheartedly on environmental problems which affect my constituents and the planet. They need greenways to get to the town centre on foot, bike or wheel chair, and that will cut traffic emissions. New homes should all be zero carbon from now on, and that would mean warmer homes and lower fuel bills as well."

Ernie Goody has been a member of the Labour Party for seven years, and has represented Haverhill East on Haverhill Town Council and St. Edmundsbury Borough Council since 2003 when he polled highest out of three Labour councillors. At this election only Labour and Tories stood in the ward and it's been a consistently tight race for years. So who knows what will happen at the ballot box.

Just to add a little spice to the pot this blog covered one of the councillors of East Haverhill not so long ago in this post about Tory Cllr Gordon Cox (who was elected in a by-election the year after) who'd been hauled across the coals for being a bluff old cove and hating being asked questions. I mean, don't these people know he's too important to be questioned for goodness sake? What do they think democracy is, a free for all?

For the people of Haverhill this is a real opportunity to break from the tired concensus politics of two parties of government that are out of touch, all too often out of reach and in love with the market. Ernie does not just represent a pleasant pre-conference boost for the Green Party he creates the possibility of the beginnings of a small block of progressive politics on the council, and that's got to be a good thing.

In the coming election all three seats in his ward will be up for grabs, so let's see if Ernie can help us get a treble this May.

House of Lords victory

The House of Commons has chosen not to go for a compromise deal and vote for a 100% elected House of Lords. Much to my surprise and pleasure.

Unlock democracy have this to say; "In case you did not hear, TWO options passed. The option for an 80% elected / 20% appointed second chamber passed by a simple majority (ayes: 305; nos: 267). The option for a fully elected second chamber passed by an absolute majority (ayes: 337; nos: 224). Given a straight choice between a hybrid house and a fully elected one, MPs backed the latter...

"Be warned though, it isn't over yet. The House of Lords will be debating its own future next week [Tuesday], and there the reform is likely to meet stiff resistance. The crucial matter of what electoral system to use remains unresolved. Will the Government hold firm in pushing through reform and, if necessary, use the Parliament Act to stop the House of Lords from blocking it? Unless we keep up the pressure over the next few crucial months, the promise of tonight's vote could remain unfulfilled for years, even decades."

It worth looking to Natalie who has blogged on the subject, and has some interesting links - including one that muses this may mean the Queen is next... oh, don't tease me so.

What kind of sectarian are you?

The left loves to think of each other as "sectarians", there never has been a genuine disagreement as far as I can tell without sectarianism being at the root of it, at least according to some quarters... but what sort, how can we tell without a diagram? Click the image and then use the chart to determine what kind of sectarian you are.

Citizens of the US may need to substitute "Member of the Democrats" for "Member of the Labour Party". Likewise with other countries.

This is a draft so any corrects particularly useful.

I really should get out more these kinds of stupidities are helping no-one...

William Morris

Been emailed this, looks worthy of passing on...

The William Morris Gallery in Walthamstow is threatened with closure, which would be a drastic loss to Morris studies - socialists and others should view the prospect with concern.

Please could you sign the online petition against closure?
Sign petition here

There's also some more general information here - Keep our museums open

Lords Reform

The debate on Lords reform is taking place today and tomorrow. Michael Meacher says "The power of the Prime Minister has grown, is still growing, and needs to be cut sharply back" and that includes ensuring that the Lords becomes a fully elected second chamber, that's democratically accountable, not one packed full of cronies and appointees, even nice ones.

MPs will be given a ballot paper from which they can choose from a number of options. 100%, 80%, 60%, 40%, 20%, 0% elected. They know which way the wind is blowing but it doesn't mean they wont hold back progress without a shove. Shame on all of them that vote for anything less than 100% elected - this isn't the age of feudalism you know.

Update: Jon Cruddas is for a 100% elected second chamber.

Swansea conference

Is that the time already? Green Party conference is fast approaching (22nd to the 25th of March in Swansea) and I thought I'd take the opportunity to mention some of the things I'll be involved with whilst there (I'll have to go early Sunday though I'm afraid in order to get back for revolucionario español, never mind).

First up is council housing. I'm one of several proposing a motion opposing Arms Length Management Organisations, or ALMO's (C7 page 30) (Proposers: Matt Sellwood, Jim Jepps, Romayne Phoenix, Anne Gray and 9 others) The synopsis reads "The Government is pushing local authorities towards 'Arms Length Management Organisations' as opposed to stock retention. This motion would commit the Green Party to opposing new ALMOs, and illustrate how to make best use of them where they already exist."

I think it's important that we prevent the slippage away from public ownership under democratic control of our public services, and with the current housing crisis it is even more important that we ensure there is decent, affordable housing for all - and that means preventing the continued erosion of the council housing stock.

There is also a friendly amendment which I hope we'll see pass through unopposed.

Second there is a change to the rules on who can be elected onto GPEx, the national executive of the Green Party (D3 page 61) (Proposers Peter Cranie, Sian Berry, Jim Jepps and Matt Sellwood). Synopsis reads "This motion brings the qualification to stand for GPEx into line with the minimum qualification to stand for the Green Party as a General Election candidate."

As things currently stand you could be a Green MP/MEP but ineligible to even *stand* for a post on GPEx, that seems wrong to me. So we're hoping to reduce the eligibility from two years of party membership to one, although I hope no one has their greedy little eyes on my poor little soul. Incidentally, there is a bonkers amendment on another motion trying to increase eligibility for a particular role to eight years! Madness...

However, the blogging highlight will of course be "Green Bloggers; utilising new media" on Thursday at 1900 (venue tba). On the timetable says its called by me but actually it organised jointly between me and our illustrious internal communications officer... keep your eyes peeled for more details closer to the time.

I'm hoping to blog the conference again, although alas I'll be missing the last day (click the Green Party tag and scroll down a bit to see last year's controversies). Perhaps I'll see some of you there?

Cambridgeshire council racism III

I promise you this is a *new* Cambridgeshire story, no matter how much it might seem like something I've said before (like this, this and this)

Tory Councillor Gail Kenney (Sawston) is up before the Standards Board tomorrow after complaints from the Soni Kuriz Young Asian Women's Group that she'd made Islamophobic / racist remarks to them after the councillor visited them in her capacity as Children's & Young People's Services Scrutiny Committee member. The girls aged between 16 and 18 claim Kenney was "racist, arrogant, prejudiced, judgmental, patronising and did not listen."

The internal investigation found that the councillor was "unintentionally" racist, breached the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and "therefore failed to treat people with respect." However, it also ruled that she had not damaged the reputation of her office, which is an interesting ruling don't you think?

She breached the Race Relations Act but that's OK? Hmmm.

Anyway, what did she actually do, apart from clearly upsetting and infuriating a group of spirited young women? She told one girl she only wore the hijab "because it suited her", made offensive remarks about Islamic terrorists and assumed that one of the girls would be "married off to some illiterate man from back home" against her will. On an official visit to a young woman's Muslim group, ffs. They should be glad she didn't come in with fists flying I suppose.

Kenney has apologised for the remarks but then goes on to state "I believe this issue has been blown out of all proportion... I take my role as a county councillor extremely seriously and will listen with interest to the deliberations of the standards board."

Well, at least she's listening to someone. Shame it isn't her constituents.

Which reminds of another story in today's papers. Cllr Patricia O'Brien has described how she has been recieving hate mail, which is obviously a bad thing. Why wont her constituents let her close schools in Newmarket, Mildenhall and Haverhill in peace. It's just so unfair isn't it?

She admits that she is surprised at the strength of local reaction to her plans for schools in the area but "I have got a lot of faith that we're doing the right thing." Apparently she represents a "silent majority" but, and I've always wondered this about silent majorities - how do you know what they think if they are silent?

Aren't any of these people listening to the people at all? Why are they making such a virtue out of being out of touch with those who live in their areas? That's democracy I guess... cough, cough.

Free hugs

Of course yesterday was not all demonstrations, there was more fun to be had. Not only did I have a very pleasant meet up with fellow bloggers Mich and John but I also had one of the most beautiful experiences I've had this year (not the lunar eclipse).

As the demo was dispersing I saw one of my next door neighbours holding up a home made sign simply saying "Free Hugs". As he saw me he made a little flick of the head (come hither) with a lovely shy smile.

I will say now, with no hesitation, that this was the best hug I had ever had in my entire life. Absolutely perfect pre-hug, during and post-hug technique.

It turns out he is part of an international movement dedicated to making the world just that little bit less unhugged.