NHS day of action

There was a regional demonstration in Cambridge today as part of the day of action to defend the NHS called by the TUC's NHS Together. It was immediately preceded by a trade union organised "conference" in a venue yards from the start of the march.

The conference had places for just one hundred participants and (apparently) consisted of being talked at by a representative of each union to say how bad everything was with no chance of discussion, planning or debate. Why were there only a hundred places "because that's the size room we booked" ummm.... Not the most worthwhile way to while away a few hours, but never mind.

The demo was rather more successful in that a few hundred turned out from around the region, Cambridgeshire (obviously), Ipswich, Colchester, Norwich, Chelmsford and Stevenage had all sent people down (and no doubt a few others places) and the march was reasonably lively and good natured.

It was noticeable however that a large portion of those who'd come from afar were left activists and in fact I recognised most of the Cambridge people too... whilst the demo was respectable in size it did not extend into the communities. Whether that's because people are pessimistic about the prospects for change or it had not been built seriously (a combination of both I suspect) who's to say. There was certainly a feeling that the unions themselves had not backed the day of action that they themselves had called.

However, as I mentioned before, it's clear that people feel very deeply about the state of the national health service and we need to translate that concern into something more substantial than a march of a few hundred people, that makes worthy statements but has no prospect of effecting change.

That's one of the reasons why it was so disappointing that the union conference, which had spent time and effort bringing rank and file trade unionists together to discuss the NHS, did not use the opportunity to get them talking. A rally where we hear things are bad just don't cut it.

We need to re-energise the health unions, tap into the community anger over the cuts in services and attempt to build a real progressive movement in defence of public services. Going beyond the existing left (which the Cambridge demo certainly did not do) is essential for any campaign to be effective and whilst its nice to be able to pick up a copy of Socialist Appeal, The Socialist and/or Socialist Worker all in one place (or be handed a copy of the notorious "What we're doing") this is not what's required, and whether the left always contributes as much as it detracts is a point we can debate all night if we're so inclined.

This day of action could have been a start but it just feels like the health unions are more worried about rocking Labour's boat than stepping up to the plate in a serious way. God knows how you make them do that though when health workers themselves often feel disempowered and demoralised.

Liam and Duncan, Life with Leukaemia, Greenman and Phil have all posted on the day of action (comment with a link if you've also posted on it and I'll add you to the list) Also the BBC, LibCom, News & Star (Cumbria), TUC

Revolutionary Spanish

Hola compañeros, well it looks like it finally may actually happen - the Cambridge Revolutionary Spanish Group may soon become a reality for all those keen on learning Spanish in order to aid the overthrow of the oligarchy, Yankee imperialism and racismo.

My previous attempts at learning Spanish have been hampered by my nascent laziness and skinflintitude. But this time will be different and I've already covered my part of the barracks in little post-it notes informing me that the door is a puerta that soldados are not to be trusted because they are homicidas and the like.

One of the difficulties I had at school with learning languages, apart from the fact I was simply *at school*, was we never learned to say anything I could remotely imagine myself ever *wanting* to say.

M. B may be the pater, his wife the mater, his son the garçon and Toto est la chien but apart from reinforcing an inherently unequal patriarchal nuclear family, where the son is only one step up from the dog, who cares? I also did Latin (I know) where Caecilius est pater, Metella's the Mum, Quintus the son followed in quick succession by Cerberus. Perhaps they both ate their dinner off the floor, who knows.

I gave up French when I was 14 (although, surprisingly, I remembered a fair bit of it the last time I was in France being able to order sausage and wine and ask for the way to the social center) and I achieved a memorable "Grade U" at Latin, which apparently means I got less than 5%. I mean how did that happen? I knew I was crap at it, but less than 5%!?! I mean, I came out of the exam and told my mate Neil "I think I did alright at that." Anyway, I digress.

So the theory is that we get hold of a job lot of the Venezuelan Constitution and similar documents to learn Spanish through investigating and talking about things we are actually interested in. The theory holds true for others too I guess. It would be great to see the local hairdressers set up "The Latin Fringe", and the neighbourhood polyamorist enclave launch "Spanish for Lovers" but that will be their responsibility to make that happen, not mine.

We've yet to firm up all the details but we already have willing students, potential tutors and a copy of "Viva La Quince Brigada" to start us off. Any Spanish dictionaries, textbooks or just Spanish language papers and novels would be gratefully accepted to help kick start the group.

I'd like to help you son, but you're too young to vote

According to the Cambridge Evening News the spate of councillor inappropriateness continues in the form of Haverhill East Cllr Gordon Cox (pictured).

Our Gordon has been suspended from the council for telling a youth councillor, of sixteen, that "children should not speak unless spoken to" and that only when youngsters "pay can they have a say".

The Tory councillor, who is a member of the democratic renewal panel, was clearly determined to prove he's a sound and responsible councillor and the outburst was uncharacteristic by storming out of the panel who were investigating whether he had breached the council's code of conduct.

This incident is wholly in keeping with the standard practice of these right wing local councillors towards utter spluttering rage whenever someone raises objections or simply asks awkward questions.

Cameron may be trying to paint the party in a modern and fresh light but the horrible truth is that the vast majority of those who make up the New Conservative Party are the same old reactionary windbags.

The idea that you have no say if you're out of work, foreign or, God forbid, too young to vote is not, I would suggest, an entirely democratic one - but it's as much due to the structures of government that encourage unaccountability, arrogance and "very important person" syndrome as is to do with the ossified fossils that inhabit the murky chambers of local government.

EDM welcoming the destruction of the human race

Whilst researching something else I came across this Early Day Motion from 2003-04

"That this House is appalled, but barely surprised, at the revelations in M15 files regarding the bizarre and inhumane proposals to use pigeons as flying bombs; recognises the important and live-saving role of carrier pigeons in two world wars and wonders at the lack of gratitude towards these gentle creatures; and believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again."

The EDM has just three signitories. Tony Banks (RIP) and current challengers for the leadership and deputy leadership of the Labour Party respectively John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn. Fancy.

Alphonsus Uche Okafor-Mefor

Paul Mackney, UCU General Secretary writes;

Dear Colleagues/Comrades

I should be most grateful if you could ask someone to give this urgent consideration.

Alphonsus Uche Okafor-Mefor is presently being held in a detention centre, and is due to be flown back this Thursday 1 March to Nigeria where he has previously been detained and tortured. This case is of particular relevance to trade unionists as he was due to speak at a forthcoming 'No One Is Illegal' Trade Union Conference, of which UCU is a sponsor. He is a leading figure in the campaign group Asylum Voice who have campaigned against the abuses suffered by asylum seekers.

He will be in imminent danger if deported, and trade unionists are asked to:

(1) Email Liam Byrne: Minister for State for Nationality, Citizenship & Immigration at byrnel@parliament.uk to ask for the case be reconsidered.
Quote reference number M1320887 Alphonsus Uche Okafor-Mefor
Fax: 020 7035 4745 Telephone: 0121 789 7287

(2) Email Virgin Atlantic Airlines asking that they do not participate in the forced removal of Alphonsus on Thursday 1st March at 22.00 Virgin Atlantic Flight VS651 to Nigeria from Heathrow.
FAX Customer Relations : 08701 900959
Customer.relations@fly.virgin.com

(3) Email Peter Kilfoyle M.P. kilfoylep@parliament.uk
Telephone: House of Commons Phone number 020 7219 2591
Constituency Phone number: 0151 284 4150
Constituency Fax number: 0151 284 4150

Second Front

Have people heard of this thing Second Life? It's a virtual world where people go online and, well, make a second life for themselves. One where they are, presumably, not friendless computer geeks.

The novel thing about this game is that it is completely open ended so, unlike many other games that have clear objectives, points systems, winners, losers, etc, the pleasure of playing is the aim of the game. In fact in the last two months over 1.3 million people have been participating in an alternative life.

Players get jobs as DJs to play real music at other people's online parties, become clothes designers or just wander about chatting to people. Suzanne Vega even performed live there. The game has millions of players and the online currency even has an exchange rate into the real world which makes it big business with millions of dollars exchanging hands.

However, if you thought you could escape political activism by going into the virtual realm, think again. The Second Life Liberation Army is waging a war for democratic change and demanding that players have a real say over where the game-world is going. According to the Metro The SLLA "is detonating computer versions of atomic bombs in a campaign to establish universal suffrage in the world, which is inhabited by more than four million people from across the world. According to its website, the SLLA is the 'military wing of a national liberation movement within second life' dedicated to establish democracy, handing residents a vote in the direction of the world."

Equally, the far-right has set up the first party headquarters in the realm with the French FN setting up shop. Of course this has met with a vitriolic response from "Second Life Left Unity" who are picketing the headquarters and are determined to wage a campaign until the fascists are driven from the virtual world. A world without borders. SLLU, whose headquarters are on the "Scotland sim" have also produced anti-war T-Shorts (pictured), demonstrated at "Capitol Hill" and appear to be connected to the SSP in some way, good on them.

If I had time or the energy I'd join in. But I don't. On the one hand you can see how it's impossible to escape the real world and its concerns and on the other I'd have real worries if someone spent all day and night trying to save the cyber-environment as the cold water rose ever higher around their ankles.

Also see here for more on similar theme

Sheridan in the ring

There were (unfair) criticisms of George Galloway when he went off to foreign climes as part of his general election drive in 2005, I wonder if there will be similar criticisms of Tommy Sheridan when he jets off to Dubai's exclusive Jumeirah Beach resort just a few weeks before the Scottish elections?

On April 7th our man with the tan will be taking part in a celebrity boxing match against former Rangers footballer Gordon Smith. Sheridan told the Scotsman (in the unfortunately titled "Sheridan Ready to Come Out Swinging") "I enjoy boxing and it's great for keeping fit. I am in training about two to three times a week although I wish it could be more often."

The fight is a good natured rematch, the pair having last met in 2003. Commenting on his previous loss to Smith Sheridan said "I lost the fight on points, which I think was unfair and I think Gordon would say that too. I think I deserved to win and only with Stevie Wonder judging could you think otherwise."

Will we see a repeat of the victory fist raised high? Will pictures of Sheridan flat on his back adorn the gossip pages of the papers in the pre-election search for anything remotely interesting to say? Interestingly Galloway was also an amateur boxer in his time and he certainly has the fire in his belly to deliver a knock out punch - perhaps he should get in training for next year?

The £200 a ticket event (or £300 for a ringside seat) is sponsored by, among others, The Sun and Sky Sports. Be there or be square I say.

Nobel Peace Prize

Have people been following this? There are 181 nominations for this year's Nobel Peace Prize which consists of 135 individuals and 46 organisations. Unfortunately, they don't release the full list of nominees for another fifty years, but naturally some of the names of those in the running get leaked.

So we know that Oscar winner Al Gore is in the running. A Canadian Inuit woman who campaigns on the environment, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, is also a nominee. Oprah pissing Winfrey is in there for her scary schools for girls initiative in South Africa, Sail Training International a charity that helps young people through sailing (um...), Irena Sendler who helped thousands escape the holocaust and two very worthy sounding groups in Colombia are also in the race. Naseem Shaikh a survivor of the Gujarat ethnic cleansing who set up an organisation to council thousands of other survivors has also been nominated for the prize would be a good choice and obviously the nomination that really caught my eye was that of Evo Morales, committed jumper wearer and President of Bolivia.

Now I suppose the thing I want to say though is who'd *want* to win the Nobel Peace Prize? Alfred Nobel (inventor of dynamite) said that the prize should be awarded to "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses" but I'm not sure it's always worked out that way.

Now a nomination is apparently rather easy to get and previous unsuccessful nominees include Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. I suppose Hitler worked tirelessly for the abolition of Stalin's armies and visa versa, but I don't think that's what Nobel had in mind... but the list of those who actually won the prize contains figures whose contribution to the fraternity of nations is almost as problematic. Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, David Trimble, and Kim Dae Jung, all have their fans but no, no, no, no, no, no, NO!

Is this the kind of company that Archbishop Tutu, Martin Luther King (pictured) and Amnesty International really want to be keeping? I think not. At least the Vietnamese Foreign Minister, Le Duc Tho, had the good sense to turn down the prize in 1973 which makes him the only person to turn down a Peace Prize, although that other all round good egg Jean Paul Satre turned down a Nobel Prize for Literature in 1964.

In that vein I've a feeling the only people I'd actually support getting the prize are people who'd turn it down (although Dario Fo won the Literature Award and he's alright, isn't he?) despite the fact that I liked An Inconvenient Truth, or if Morales is awarded the prize it does actually make it objectively more difficult for the US to back one of those right-wing coups in Bolivia. I'm not sure I really care, as long as it isn't Oprah Winfrey that is.

Stop the War Demo

As I arrived in Trafalgar Square I sent a text to my mate Dave to ask if he was there yet (we might go for coffee rather than listen to speeches we'd both heard so many times before). He texted back - he hadn't left Hyde Park yet. I tell you what, I think the Stop the War demo was big. Maybe 100,000, although I worry about my estimate because it is the same as the StWC, a worthy organisation often weak on its arithmatic.

Having only just arrived in time due to a bout of over sleeping, for which there is no excuse, I was a bit all over the place but still managed to spot fellow blogger Liam who posts on the demo here (and has spotted possibly the greatest ever banner, pictured), and a number of other friendly faces from round the country.

I hadn't been on one of these things for a while so was surprised by i) how quiet it was, ii) how big it was, iii) how sensible Permanent Revolution are, who are a split from ultra left delusionists Workers Power.

Oh, I almost forgot, there was a naked protester too. Although this one kept her bra and pants on thankfully, which means that technically she wasn't naked, but it's the tedious thought that counts. When these things were a bit more common I'd thought about making a banner saying "put your clothes on!" and racing after any of these people that dared show their faces (among other things) - next time...

Jolly good. Although I'm still concerned at the lack of discussion on Afghanistan it was worth going, worth getting up for and, whilst the political effectiveness of each individual march is minimal, the cumulative effect of keeping the anti-war movement on the streets does allow us to show that the concern over the criminal foreign policy of this government goes beyond the editorial room of the Independent, God bless them.

Where are the NHS saviours?

I attended a public meeting hosted by Cambridge Trades Council the other night on the crisis in the NHS. The turnout was low and it started awkwardly as the advertising had suggested the meeting started at 7.30 pm but, in fact, this was the preliminary business section so there was an odd stand off when TUC members didn't know whether to throw people out, not hold their business or what.

I was pleased that the Trades Council had called the meeting and the speaker, John Lister, was, I thought, superb. However, I was rather shocked at how few had attended (a total of 27, although some of those left before things got going properly, and others arrived only as the meeting was ending so there were never that many in the room at any one time).

Personally I don't believe this was due to some massive failing on the part of the TUC (although I'm sure we can always do better) but is more to do with the fact that although people are angry at the way the NHS has been treated it's very difficult to mobilise people who think that nothing can be done.

We've lost the optimism, I suspect, of the big ideas. So in specific localities demonstrations to save a particular hospital or service can be really something, but the idea of saving the NHS in toto just seems like too much. People have seen the way the wind is blowing, don't like it, but (currently) aren't willing to come out and take part in what may look like a potentially hopeless movement.

If the Tories were in power we could bind the idea of publicly owned, properly funded public services with that of supporting Labour but, as we've seen, that isn't necessarily a recipe for success. As it is we're being given the option of which sauce we'd like to be cooked in, not whether we'd like to get out the pot altogether.

There are, of course, some within the Labour Party who've been willing to put up a fight on more than a case by case basis. As John McDonnell says "Yes, the Labour Government have pumped more money into the health budget but billions of that much-needed cash is being creamed off by the speculators and multi-nationals behind the Private Finance Initiatives and the Independent Sector Treatment Centres."

This governmental love affair with the market has led to the situation where we pay more to clean our hospitals, but they get dirtier year on year. We pay more for hospital bed space, but the ill become part of a Fordist production line mentality in and out of hospital with maximum speed and minimum recuperation, so beds end up being used for only the direst emergencies - which inevitably begin to increase.

This idea of patients as units of work is most damaging when applied to the mental health services and local cuts have already been cited in the deaths of more than one mental health patient and a massive increase in attacks on staff.

What I found odd about the meeting was the fact the groupescules all sat in blocks - so the seven Respect people all sat in the section to the chair's right, and the eight Socialist Appeal people sat together just behind me, all the normal people sat on the chair's left and I sat with two eccentrics, a fact from which we can draw no conclusion. I hope.

Oh yes, and the party members all led off on what party they were in and then making wildly optimistic speeches in a half full room. One SA guy even devoted much time and effort, after announcing his Labour Party membership, to advocating workers control for the NHS. I hadn't realised that was Labour Party policy but, you know, all credit to them. I still wasn't sure this was as useful as it could have been. Respect, of course, devoted the meat of their speeches to how we organise the next exciting demo.

When it came down to it there were only two people in the room who actually said anything from the floor about the NHS the branch sec. of Addenbrookes UNISON and the branch sec of Hinchinbrooke Hospital UNISON. From which I conclude there ween't enough straight trade union members there. It would also have been nice if the community campaigners who have been leading an excellent fight to defend various services in Cambridge had been there, but perhaps they'd been invited and declined to come.

Meetings like this are, naturally, part of the attempt to build a resistance to the attacks on the health service, but as you may be able to tell, I'm in pessimistic mood when it comes to our current ability to resist neo-liberalism in the NHS. A pessimism bolstered by the blinkered dogma of those who couldn't address why the room was half empty and attempt to lay out a strategy for broadening and deepening the layer of people who are willing to come out on a winter's night to defend public services.

Let's end gun culture

Allotment alert!

Have you ever fancied having an allotment? I know I haven't - but others have I suspect. They're probably attracted by the very things that repel me about the whole thing - the exercise, the muck, eating healthy food... the thought of it.

However, I don't oppose allotments on principle and it has come to my attention that there are a number of free spaces on the allotments up near Coldham's Lane, Stourbridge Grove Allotments to be exact.

They are overgrown and therefore free of charge to anyone who is willing to clear them. Phone Cambridge 240022 for more details on how to get your allotment. You could always share a plot with a friend.

The rumour is that the council is eyeing the land and saying "those allotments are not being used... perhaps we'll sell it off". Let's prevent public land being sold into private hands and the solution is obvious. We don't need to demonstrate, write letters to our MPs or anything like that, we just need to take them up on their generous offer and get digging.

While I'm at this advertising lark some readers in the Cambridge area might also like to know there are spaces coming up in the housing co-op. If you fancy living in a landlord free zone where people make decisions collectively why not apply to get on to the housing list. Phone Cambridge 411615 for your form, or more info.

What's that tapping?

Blair's all in favour of allowing the security services to bug MP's phones it seems.

The outgoing Interception of Communications Commissioner (the what? Okay, whatever) has urged a Parliamentary committee to allow the spooks scope to bug who they like because "It is fundamental to the constitution of this country that no-one is above the law or is seen to be above the law."

But seeing as the secret services has a bit of a track record at trying to derail representative democracy shouldn't we apply that rule to them first? Until we can be sure that the spooks are above board, and will be in perpetuity, we can't trust them to spy on our elected representatives.

After all, even now it is Parliament who are accountable to them rather than the other way around. Where is the democratic accountability of the secret service when there is no transparency?

Who would they bug? Keith Vaz? George Galloway? Gordon Brown? And what *exactly* would they do with the information they accidentally retreive - like affairs, or support for left wing causes?

There is a case for having security services, I think, but up until now they have operated like a state within a state - and therefore we need to keep them out of the private affairs of our democratically elected representatives simply on the basis that if we give them the information to subvert democracy - they just might do it.

Cat and Girl

Do you like Cat and Girl? I do (click picture to see full size).

Just say no mates

I guess there are hundreds of reasons why I've never dealt illegal, recreational drugs. A cowardly concern for my liberty, a discomfort at promoting harmful substances, the mind numbing tedium that passes for conversation among new comers to "mind expanding" substances. Hundreds of reasons, as I say.

Probably the most heartfelt reason is my desire, possibly even need, to trust those around me. I don't expect to trust heroin addicts, they are what they are. Consumed. Wearing their religion like an ever present dirty raincoat. Whilst I don't relish their company I'm not offended by the moral vacuum they find themselves engulfed by. It's their burden not mine.

However, as a seller of substances you are (on the whole) likely to find yourself among arseholes, whose only interest in you comes from what you can do for them, and that leaves me with an icy feeling in the bottom of my gut.

I used to live with a rather prolific dealer. He was my landlord, and I his lodger. The house was always full of his friends, but there was an odd thing about these friends though. None of them liked him.

Almost without exception they would say horrible things about him when he wasn't around and were often not *that* pleasant even when he was. But he had drugs and a warm, dry place you could take them in.

This was a bit unfair as he had many good personal qualities and he was lucky enough to have one real, lasting friend, with whom he was united in adoration for Colchester United, but he was the exception that proved the rule. The majority of those who spent time in the living room with its constant grey haze were there to simply to take.

I banned friends from coming round when one young woman I knew unexpectedly popped round, I was so pleased until she bought an eighth from him and I realised I had absolutely no idea whether she'd come round to see me or was just being friendly to the shopkeeper's assistant [me] in order to get through the door.

I simply was not going to put myself in the position where I didn't know why someone was hanging out with me and told her afterwards I never wanted her to come round my place again. She was annoyed and when we'd see each other she'd find excuses to ask (or sometimes demand) to come over - but the answer was always no. It was a question of trust.

For most dealers (and to lesser extent their lodgers) there is often an ambiguity to these relationships, I think. There are some who are very careful to only sell to their close circle and try to keep unwanted flotsam and jetsam from the door - but even then it's impossible to prevent the odd occasion where people get close to you because of what you've got, not who you are.

I wouldn't like that, and so I'll add that to the pile of reasons why I'd never sell illegal, recreational drugs.

Let's all be nice to the wogs

What is it with South Cambridgeshire District Council? They seem to be lurching from one bigotry related crisis to the next.

This time Conservative Cllr Ted Pateman has shocked council officials with his ripe language. Doing his very best to welcome in this new fangled multi-culturalism he stated "There are all different sorts of wogs here [Cambridgeshire], I don't differentiate between them but treat them all as though they were English".

Good for you councillor, good for you. After all we're all English underneath aren't we?

However, the scandal comes on the back of not just Cllr Roberts bullying behaviour and anti-traveller bias but also an audit Commission report that stated "there is a clear perception amongst some stakeholders [us?] that some councillors' attitudes and behaviours are racist and discriminatory".

Pateman's slip of the tongue reflects something far deeper and nastier that's going on in the south of the county. I actually have some sympathy for Pateman who is simply at a loss to understand why his language is offensive.

He reacted by saying "The term is in the Oxford English Dictionary. It wasn't meant as a derogatory remark of any description, in fact I was emphasising that in Cambourne we have a mix of different nationalities but you don't notice.

"They're all equal, all English and you can see that when the kids go to school in the morning. In my Close of 42 houses, we have 11 different nationalities and they are all neighbours. There's no racism up here in Cambourne and I don't think there is very much in Cambridgeshire.

"I will write and offer my apologies if I've caused any annoyance to anyone."

There are lots of terms in the dictionary, like racist, bigoted, elitist, oligarchic, rural, inbred, bumkin, but we shouldn't throw them around before looking them up. My dictionary says of the word wog "Used as a disparaging term for a person of color, especially a person from northern Africa or western or southern Asia" so to claim the dictionary defines the word which makes it alright is, I think, a touch mistaken.

The fact is the good councillor, like so many of these rural Tories, is just out of his depth when confronted with the modern world. Even when trying to say something positive and worth while he can't but help muck it up.

I wont be calling for his poor old head, but the people of South Cambridgeshire need proper representation - and that will require sweeping out of office three quarters of the current incumbents who are simply fossilized lumps that modernity has passed by.

This sporting life

I couldn't care less how many medals Great Britain wins at the London Olympics, or anywhere else for that matter, although I do care that they are driving a bulldozer through local communities against their will and erecting huge one-use structures and then calling it green.

Every year we are told of the lack of resources put into sports (thus leading to our crumby tally of victories at cricket, tennis, running, jumping, et al) just because the government doesn't spend a fraction of the petty cash of a donkey sanctuary on promoting sports in schools, but prefer to sell off the playing fields instead.

But the fact is we've become more and more passive about our activities, expecting the government to stump up for stuff we can get on and make happen ourselves anyway.

The Ramblers Association may have a mild reputation today but it was founded on militant activity in the teeth of the interests of the land owners and was even willing to organise mass trespasses to fight for their right for a bit of fresh air and a bracing stroll.

The left in Britain, like its counter parts across the world, organised into groups like the British Workers Sports Federation to build a network of cultural groups which could combine a radical political outlook with healthy exercise or simply provide a vehicle for common interests among working class people who were denied other ways of accessing sporting facilities.

Of course, the government should not be selling off state owned playing fields or allowing private companies into our schools but we can't hang around waiting for them to do things for us either. There's nothing stopping anyone forming their own Frisbee circle, pro-cycling propaganda group, mass cycle rides, cheer leading or any other form of urban fitness you can think of - and I for one think it's this kind of project, rather than whining about the government, that can teach us lessons about self activity leading to emancipation.

You gotta nuke something

Good news at last. Greenpeace, those dirty commie anarchists, have forced the government to go back and start again on nuclear power.

Greenpeace say "The government's decision to back a new fleet of nuclear power stations in the UK was "legally flawed", the High Court has heard...

"The energy review... failed as a "full public consultation" because it did not present clear proposals and information on key issues surrounding a new generation of nuclear power stations, such as dealing with radioactive waste and financial costs."

According to the BBC "The judge said information given on waste had been "not merely inadequate but also misleading... There could be no proper consultation, let alone the fullest consultation, if the substance of these two issues was not consulted on before a decision was made,"

As I mentioned before nuclear power is not a long term solution to harmful emissions, it's dangerous, it provides a target for terrorists (of both state and individual varietes), it produces waste we can't deal with and the only option that provides real energy security are renewables.

Nuclear power is not a global solution to the global problem of climate change - but the issue is a convenient one for the government to push their toxic agenda.

Personally, I'd like to see this country revitalise the manufacturing industry through a massive programme of investment in renewable energy technology and production which we would then sell at cost to those that can afford to buy or give as aid to those countries too poor to afford clean energy. But that's just me I guess.

V-Day Post

I was asked not to write a Valentine's Day post on account of a wholy unwarranted assumption that I would be a "cynical, nasty and bitter young man" about the whole thing. Oh how little people know me. Thank goodness.

There are those on the left who regard emotions and subjectivity as things that are not real, with no substance, but I think these people miss the point that just because human nature is not set it does not mean that the way we are and the things we think and feel don't exist.

I've heard more than once that there is no such thing as morality - which is tripe. Morals can get you killed, make you famous, blow up bridges and enslave millions in dead end jobs of impoverishment and hurt. What could be more real than that?

Likewise "love" may not be eternal in the way some poets would have you believe but it's certainly a real phenomenon that can break backs with one well placed word. But it is also a word you'll be hard placed to find in Marxist papers or leftist texts whose focus on the inequities of the world rarely allows space for those things most of us see as genuinely creative desires.

So I remain to be conviced that love, morals, religious feeling and winning the lottery are all myths without substance. Mythologised perhaps, but certainly they are a very real part of the stuff of life.

However, English is a blunt language and we have just one word to express love for your mother, friends, cake, husband, bit on the side and Arsenal Football Club. I'd say the feelings I might have when confronted with a curve of the neck that seems to encapsulate, perhaps just for that moment, all that is warm, graceful and right with the world are not the same as my love of cheese puffs. Although at times these things can be equally intense.

We end up qualifying the word, often clumsily. 'Romantic' love, 'parental' love... prefixes that take the edge off one of the most powerful words in the language and yet do so little to clarify specific meaning.

Herbert Marcuse famously said that "Not every problem someone has with his girlfriend is necessarily due to the capitalist mode of production" which is, of course, wrong when you take a broad historical outlook, but is probably worth bearing in mind when considering leaving the washing up un-washed up.

Now whilst I'd argue that love has to have a place in any progressive form of politics I wouldn't want to go the whole hog and say we need to place it at the centre. Anger, at injustice, poverty, waste, war is a gift with great value. Reason, our ability to work at a problem with our brains, clearly has to be there, right at the top.

However, at the end of the day, at heart, becoming a green or a socialist or an anarchist is a value judgement. A subjective decision that, for example, to discriminate on the basis of skin colour, or religious denomination, does not just cause the victims hurt and has a knock on effect in our ability to unite together but is out and out wrong, and has to stop - it's a bad thing regardless of rationalisations.

I'd argue that politics without love is John Reid, Thatcher, Khrushchev. Without love it's David fucking Miliband. Love doesn't make someone right - but it does make them connected and human - and without that changing the world is a very dangerous game indeed.

The ugly truth

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but whilst it is interesting to discover that Cleopatra, famed for her ability to enthrall the hearts of the most powerful men of her age was "ugly" I think there are two things I feel I should point out.

One, Mark Anthony and Julius Caeser may have had naughty designs in her regard - but let's not entirely rule out these may have been political in nature rather than romantic. Perhaps it was her enormous tracts of lands that held some appeal.

Two, could these coins not just as easily show that coin designers weren't up to much back in the day. I mean I've got a picture of the Queen in my pocket which doesn't look very much like her, and if the likeness is inadequate with the aid of modern technology can we not entertain the thought that it is the image that is out of whack - not Cleopatra's face.

Personally, I think the two images on the coin (pictured) look like they could be the Grimm Brothers rather than lovers who made a "pair so famous".