Bolivia: victory for Morales

Good news. I see Evo Morales, the first democratically elected indigenous President of Bolivia, has been re-elected for his second term. The vote was around 61% far outstripping his right-wing, racist rivals - at least one of whom is awaiting trial for political murders.

As leader of the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) he's seen some extra-ordinary opposition to his plans for addressing social inequality in Bolivia including shocking plans like actually taxing foreign companies that mine gas and other resources (gasp), or building schools and clinics in rural areas (shock).

Morales came to power on the back of a vast protest movement that had overthrown President after President in Bolivia. In that election, in 2005, he received 53% of the vote and, if I remember correctly, this was the first time a Presidential candidate had ever received more than half the vote in the first round of the elections, meaning there was no need for a run off between the top two candidates. To increase that historic lead makes this even more impressive.

Once again the indigenous dominated West of the country voted for Morales with La Paz peaking at 73% and in the richer East MAS was the second party. The senatorial elections held at the same time, which take place under a first past the post system, saw MAS win just under 70% of the seats.

It's not surprising Evo won when schemes like the Juanito Pinto, a bit like the first form of child benefit Bolivia has ever seen and the MAS government's hard line stance on purging the police of corrupt officers the government has been extremely popular with the many, despite the fact that these reforms have all been conducted against the extreme hostility on the part of the rich, white land owning elites.

Years of enrolling indigenous people onto the electoral register saw the total numbers eligible to vote rise from 3.6 million in 2005 to 5.1 million today. Today is a real victory for the Bolivian people. Hurray!

Weekending

Hope you're having a good week. Let's take a very quick peek at some bits and bobs just gone by.

Blogs;

• Earwicga very nice design
  
• Awkward family photos which is a set of... well you'll see
  
• Brainsquawks is fun
  
• Grey Matter - newsletter for Newcastle
• Housmans have started selling lefty books on-line.
  

Posts;

• Could we have meat without harming animals?
• Lancaster Unity looks at events with the far right in Nottingham.
• Snitch?
• Asked to take minutes? Try this excuse.
  

Diary Dates;

• Sat 12th Dec. Green Party London Fed Winter Party free - donations welcome.
  
• Weds 16th Dec. Feeding the 5,000 who ever said there's no such thing as a free lunch.
• Sat 13th March 2010 Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Conference

Continuing my theme of musical mix matches we have these people dancing the Charleston... to Daft Punk;



Only topped by Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger sung a cappella!

The Wave: tens of thousands against climate change

I think it was the largest anti-climate change demo I've ever been on today. It was extremely jolly and noisy, with plenty of people with faces painted, in silly costumes and oh so many musical instruments.

Despite wearing my usual sensible gear (warm dark hat and warm dark coat) I didn't begrudge the carnival atmosphere for a change.

I met up with lots of pals, had some excellent Japanese food in the middle (to stave off the cold, of course) and filmed yet more video footage which I'm attempting to edit.


I see Stuart was taking pics, Liam reports, and I'm eagerly awaiting the other blog updates from my regular reading list of thousands; Camden Green Party has posted a picture of me, as has Green Ladywell. Crafty Green Poet gives some numbers. Indymedia has created a feature.

Update: Random Blowe, Save Vestas, Third Estate. Brussels demo. Adrian Windisch also has a pic of me, and others.

Well I beg to differ Mr Davis

I see Dave Davis former Tory front-bencher and ex-SAS hard man has made a scathing attack on the greens. You see, because he hasn't read the Stern Report he thinks taking measures against climate change is going to 'cripple' the economy rather than save our collective asses.

He "warned of a public backlash if more unpopular "green" measures were imposed". Which measures would these be? Well, David explains he means the "hair shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds".

So basically he means that people are sick of policies that have not actually been imposed. Aviation fuel is still ludicrously exempt from excise duty, so driving to the countryside for a weekend break in the UK is still taxed more heavily than flying to Spain.

Also, I don't know which country's countryside he's referring to but it can't possibly be the UK because precious little of it is "covered" in wind turbines. He makes it sound like you can't turn round for seeing them. If only.

Anyway, he's missed the basic point that investment in green jobs, with a program rolling out loft insulation, renewable energy technologies and energy saving measures isn't a hair shirt measure if you're one of the growing numbers of people on the dole and in need of a wage - or for that matter if you're on the recieving end of having your drafty old house refitted.

He may also like to address how measures to hold off the effects of peak oil are anything but attempts to prevent the impoverishment of billions of people. He might think steering us towards oil bankruptcy is a good idea, but most us see that the effects of this will be rather unpleasant for everyone.

Perhaps he comes closer to stating his real objections when he says "Many of the people signed up to the green movement instinctively believe in statist, regulatory, dirigiste regimes."

I think he might mean the (whisper it) Green New Deal. Well, he could be right. We are a bunch of communists really. First they came for your cheap holiday flights and the next thing you know they've nationised the nation's pets.

Anyway, I'll hold my hands up, I don't think the market will magically solve climate change if left to its own devices. I also think we need meaningful international action at a government level - Mr Davis clearly does not.

His last substantive point is that "We often worry, properly, about the potential effects of global warming on the poorer parts of the world. We should also worry that cutting the world's growth will condemn millions of people to continuing poverty in the decades to come."

Mr Davis, please, read the Stern Report. He's not a woolly liberal. You'd like him. He also sees very clearly that climate change is going to cost the economy a lot of money if we don't address it. That's right - it's hard to shop if you're three foot under water.

He's like the man who doesn't want to fix his leaky roof because it's not raining. It'll cost money and effort to fix that roof... but only a fraction of the time, effort and misery that you'll have to put in after the first bout of heavy rainfall.

Of course, he's not speaking for the Tory Party itself, Cameron's shirt-sleaved luvvies are all very eco-PR-friendly, but I bet he's taken note of the recent events in Australia. He wont be putting his bid for Tory leadership in again any time soon, but he's a useful reminder that even Tories who can be quite good on some issues, like civil liberties, can still be irresponsible bastards at heart.

Updates: more Tory sceptics come out of the woodwork in The Independent.

Copenhagen pointless?

Wednesday's edition of the Morning Star has an incredibly pessimistic article by me on the international climate talks in Copenhagen.

The gist of my thesis is; they are unlikely to broker a deal that is anywhere near enough; any commitments they do make they will break; we're fucked.


On Saturday there is a national demonstration (plus lots of feeder events) for action on climate change. Details here. Might be worth a try.

Australian Tories Depose Leader Over Climate Change

The Australian Tories (confusingly called 'Liberals') have deposed their leader, by a margin of just one vote, in favour of a climate 'sceptic'. Presumably he does believe there is a climate, just not what any scientist might have to say about it.

The Liberals had been bogged down with infighting over the party's policies on emissions trading. The former leader of the party, Turnbull, had been in favour of a free vote on the issue but the new leader, Mr Abbott, was unimpressed and beat Turnbull 42 votes to 41 which effectively killed the government's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in the days running up to Copenhagen.

On Saturday then leader Turnbull issued this statement on the need to tackle climate change. This section is pretty indicative of Turnbull's position, and why it enraged the climate deniers;

I recognise there are many people, particularly in my party, who do not believe that climate change is real and naturally do not see the need to do much about it. I respect their views and that of other climate change sceptics. But the fact is we should approach this issue from a risk management basis. Conservative leaders, centre-right leaders from around the world do that. I am not aware of any major political party in the world that has a do nothing approach to climate change, that has a policy of climate change denial.

Margaret Thatcher herself, back in 1990, nearly 20 years ago, said we should take action to cut greenhouse gas emissions as a matter of “risk management”... because what we are talking about here is not just an issue of today, this is an issue for today, tomorrow and the years to come. It is about protecting our planet, protecting the future of our children and their children.

Currently the Liberals are in disarray and their newly found hard-line stance on climate change is unlikely to do them many favours outside of their core tribal support. As the Sydney Morning Herald reports, one supporter of the old leadership as saying the Liberals have ‘‘f----- ourselves over’’.

I'm not saying the ETS is great. The Ozzie Greens have been pretty clear in their opposition but why you oppose something is as important as the fact that you do. The new leader Abbot, who has written books on how great having a constitutional monarchy is, wrote an article last week on this very subject which you can see here. If we dip into his "Carbon Vanity" piece there are some revealing passages;

The Liberals have always opposed deep cuts to carbon emissions in the absence of a global agreement.

Some, unconvinced that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions pose potentially catastrophic climate risk, have opposed an ETS in principle. Others, though disinclined to believe that climate change is the "great moral issue of our time", have thought that prudence could justify the imposition of a modest carbon price. Still others, impressed by weight of numbers, have supported strong action against climate change in conjunction with other countries...

Claims that Al Gore's film presented hypotheses as certainties plus evidence that the world has actually cooled slightly during the past decade have undermined the arguments for immediate, drastic action. Last week, the Lowy Institute published data showing that the percentage of Australians who regard global warming as a pressing problem that needs to be addressed, even at significant cost, had dropped from 68 to 48 per cent since 2006.

Hmmm. Having someone that is open about his belief that there is no need for urgent action on climate change may be an electoral liability for the Liberals, but the broader picture is that this is a step back for everyone. As a major force in Australian politics the fact that they have chosen to take this course creates real problems.

The irresponsibility of the Liberals makes my blood boil. By taking this decision they are giving international comfort to backwards reactionaries everywhere from the US Senate, the murky corners of our Tory Party and every other science hating runt that hopes to have political influence.

Grammar: affect and effect

My spelling is, to say the least, below par. My grammar is too, probably, although I'm less worried about that, after all language is about communication and if the textbook rules contradict the fluidity of my speech so much the worse for the rules I say.

What you can get away with grammatically you sadly cannot in the field of spelling. If you can't spell (like me) people will not just think worse of you, they'll feel they have the right to tell you too!

I do actually quite like people correcting my spelling as it helps me raise my game - although politeness is always appreciated, naturally.

Of course, spellcheck is a blessing and a danger. A blessing because it picks up my most obvious mistakes (and regular typos, for the life of me I can't type the word 'particular' without getting the L in the wrong place - and I do know where it goes!), but a danger because it has no sense of the appropriate word, only misspellings.

Take effect and affect. Someone (very kindly) has just pointed out that I'd used the wrong version in a sentence but it's a rule that for the life of me I just cannot remember. So I've gone and looked it up;

To affect something is to change or influence it, To effect something is a rather formal way of saying `to make it happen'.

Confusingly, either may produce an 'effect' or result. ('An affect' is a technical term in psychology.)

So if it's a noun you use 'e' unless you're using it in a technical sense. If something affects someone it's an 'a' and if someone effects something - it's an 'e'. Sort of.

Do you know what - I don't think I'm going to remember this, but maybe writing it down will have helped.

Swiss architecture foolishness

Today the Swiss people have decided in a referendum to ban minarets, an architectural feature found on some of the most beautiful buildings in the world, because of their association with Muslims.

A worrying 57.5% people voted against new minarets being built, with opposition particularly concentrated in the French speaking West. What's even more disturbing is the way that the creators of the motion are clearly barking mad.

"The initiators of the measure, the right-wing ”Erkingen Committee,”... claimed minarets were an attempt to spread radical Islam in Switzerland, said the vote would bar any attempt to introduce elements of Sharia law in Switzerland."

What? I mean... what? People actually voted with these morons? There's no movement to introduce Sharia law in Switzerland and what the hell have minarets got to do with anything? Since when did the shape of a building threaten liberal democracy? They can't all be simpletons can they?

The Swiss Green Party is investigating whether they can challenge this result legally. Before the vote they issued the following statement (apologies for the rough and ready translation where I've strived for meaning rather than literal meaning).

NO to the minaret prohibition

Switzerland is a liberal and democratic constitutional state. A country, which retains internal cohesion with its linguistic, cultural and religious variety. The freedom of religion is embodied in the Swiss condition.

The referendum, which seeks to create a general prohibition on the building of minarets, shakes the foundations of our constitution. It is discriminating because it wants to forbid Muslims from using one of their religious symbols. It thereby wants to refuse them a right, which the other religious communities have.

The initiative endangers the constitutional state and the internal cohesion of Switzerland. It polarizes opinion and hinders the factual correction of prejudices and wrongly reduces our enemies to Islam.

The freedom of religion may not be abolished. That would be a dishonor for our country and an abuse of direct democracy. Therefore the Greens call on all voters on 29th November to place a clear, convinced no to a deeply un-Swiss project into the ballot box.

The irrational fear of Islam as a whole is an extremely poor way of preventing Muslims from hating you. Come to that I've taken the Swiss off my Christmas card list myself.

Weekending: 29th November

It's time for the regular weekend hit and miscellaneous.

Blogs and sites;

• Steve Durrant looks an interesting lefty.
• Best blog name? The audacity of Pope.
• Just came across Vote Wise. Probably something council candidates might want to utilise.
  
• I'm rather enjoying Letters from a Tory at the moment. Sorry everyone.
• Fold school! Yes, you too can make furniture out of cardboard.
  

A small selection of articles;

• Cathryn Symons discusses water energy that doesn't bother the fish.
  
• Not really a diary is worried about the expenses of local politicians.
• Hugh Orde says keep politics out of policing.
• Kate Hudson on CND's soviet funding.
• How racist is Barking? From Lancaster Unity.
  

Updates on previous articles;

• After writing my piece on Men's Societies Dave and Zetkin.net have both written pieces in general agreement and Reuben takes issue with me. enjoy.
• I asked Ben, a serving prisoner, what he thought of the recent prison officers' strikes. This is what he said.
  

Diary Dates;

• Tues 1st December Candlelit vigil for Ian Tomlinson
  
• Sat 5th December National Climate March.
• Sat 12th December Green Party London Fed Winter Party free - donations welcome.
  
• Sat 13th March 2010 Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Conference

I've just discovered why the web was invented - and here it is;


Welcome to the internet.

Budgen's Cola: a little bit flat

That's right - the Cola reviews are back! It's been a while, but then again I've been sticking to beer and coffee for the most part, which may be part of the explanation.

Budgens' Cola is another cheap and cheerful brand name that will sort you out when in need of something wet. As far as the taste goes we're not roving into the bizarre 'black carrot' realms of the M&S abomination, nor the fruity blend of Whole Earth. We're talking a risk-free cola that is like drinking a very familiar acquaintance rather than friend or stranger on the bus.

My one reservation about this Cola is that it seemed, well, a little bit flat. Not just the paucity of bubbles, which is not fatal, but the tang lacks bite. I think they've gone for the safe option, the road that offends the least, and in the process they've made a Cola of no real repute.


Don't get me wrong, Budgens provides a cheap way of quenching your thirst without disgusting you. If you think that Coke is a bit edgy - this is probably the Cola for you. If you were choosing a drink to enjoy you might want to look further afield.

John Cleese explains PR

Just came across this fascinating party broadcast on behalf of the SDP / Liberal Alliance from, I believe, 1985. John Cleese explains the need for proportional representation. I think it's rather good.



The quality of recording is not top notch but it's rather well made for it's time.

Why the Tories hate Europe

William Hague, shadow foreign secretary by day, Just William look-a-like by night has been shaking his Yorkshire fist at Europe again. He's just about as irate as his little body can bear.

First of all the UK should not have gone for the top foreign policy job because foreign policy is not really important (which is a curious position for a would-be Foreign Secretary, but that's where a 'don't mention the war' position eventually lands you I suppose).

Secondly he's in a tizz because the vital British job Brown should have gone for was that of the finance brief which has gone to some Johnny foreigner of all people. A Frenchman no less - so you can see why Hague is in a state about that.

Not only has the portfolio on "internal market and financial services" gone to someone who is French they aren't even in favour of the free market - despite having been nominated by frighteningly Blairish President Sarkozy. So here we come to it.

Michel Barnier, the successful applicant, has a desire to "tame the excesses of "Anglo-Saxon" capitalism" according to the Guardian. It gets worse for Hague because "The commission is keen to regulate hedge funds and overhaul supervision and regulation of the markets through new boards aimed at minimising risk and controlling the insurance, investment and banking sectors."

Mr Hague responding to the announcement that this red, who actually wants to regulate the financial sector has been given the reins of power, said "We repeatedly warned the government that going for the High Representative post and not a senior economic brief in the commission could have worrying results. Financial services are a vital British economic interest. The European commission's proposals have the potential to do serious harm to our financial services industry."

Some might think that, in the wake of recent events, it would be the responsible thing to do to regulate the financial sector. No. when it comes to a choice between destroying the economy or creating supervisory boards clearly the boards are a fate worse than death. A bit of a blow for anyone who hoped the conservatives might be a bit better at managing the economy than Brown inc.

Interestingly this commie, red in tooth and claw, is the Vice President of the European People's Party the European grouping that the Tories left recently. I guess Euro-Tories just weren't right-wing enough for them.

We Wee Where We Want

The student who had the poor judgement to get drunk and wee on a war memorial has been sentenced to 250 hours of community service - which is a lot.

If he'd had the good sense to go in a graveyard and pee on the gravestones out of sight like everyone else he'd have had no bother. However, is it just me or is this new?

I don't advocate the application of fresh urine to war memorials under any circumstances, my preference is for people to keep their bits and pieces tucked away in their pants, but in England I think it's fair to say it's common practice for drunk people to piss in public.

It's horrible and I don't like it, but it is pretty common place and you don't have the courts filled with these weak bladdered drunkards.

It feels like he's being made an example of, not least because he's being pilloried in the press, and I'm not sure I like it.

Three stories from today's Guardian

Today's Guardian is full of really good stuff today.

First we have the German banker who's been taking money out of rich people's accounts and transferring it to the poor.

Get in! I wonder if she's one of these German's I spoke about a while ago who have asked the government to tax them more.

Then we have lying cops getting caught out again.

The police chief in charge of the G20 counter operation explicitly told the Commons that there were no undercover teams on the day. Turns out Commander Bob Broadhurst is a complete liar and there were 25 plain clothes police officers mingling with the crowd that day.

Don't worry Bob, you wont get fired. I mean nothing happened to coppers who made up all that stuff about the camp for climate action. Parliament genuinely doesn't care if you lie to it - it really doesn't.

And lastly we have a possible case of sub-editors revenge. John Crace writes an article on how to deal with bullying and stress at work. There's an interesting choice of first words to the piece which bear little relation to the rest of the article, namely; "Change a word and I'll kill you."

Pardon John? Is this a post-modern meta-deconstruction of an article about bullying at work where you fake bullying the sub-editor, in which case it's very subtle... or more simply is it just the sub taking you at your word and leaving in every damn word. I can't decide.

Parallel ethics

I went to my first 'Westminster Skeptics' meeting tonight which was on science activism and new media. Really excellent, speakers and audience with lots of food for thought. One thing in particular, that the Holford Watch blogger (name?) said, as an aside really got me thinking.

He described bloggers as having "novel ethical norms". Now if you were being cruel you might say yes, locked away in the darkness, hunched over a tiny screen it's no wonder many bloggers develop such unbelievably stunted manners. But let's not be cruel, let's be nice.

I think it's an interesting point because there are clear differences in what is seen as ethical and unethical online and where the borders are in meat space.

If you compare the way a newspaper article and a blog piece use links for example it is expected of a blogger to link to their sources, in a similar way to academics if less formal, whilst there's no expectation for journalists to link to source material so the reader can judge for themselves whether the journo is getting things right.

More importantly the only context where I would have a discussion with anonymous people is on a blog (not this one, I don't allow anonymous comments, although people still use pseudonyms, which is fine). I certainly wouldn't put up with the rudeness of some online commentators in a face to face meeting - although it's usually pretty civilised round here as I don't allow that sort of thing to grow.

However, it's still true that the net frees some people up to their inner bore who's lurking beneath the surface and they think nothing of exhibiting behavior that, if they saw it in their day to day life, they would be horrified at.

So why is this? Well, I think it comes down to basic material factors rather than any new exciting 'social media philosophy' or some such.

Linking is easy. Anonymity is possible online, it is not face to face. More than that it is easily done, which is why anonymous hate mail in real life is rare (but sadly does exist) and online is a way of life for some. Even being unpleasant to people is encouraged because it is so much easier to come across people you despise.

I've never been to a Tory meeting in my life even though, theoretically, it affords me the opportunity to start screaming "Remember the Belgrano!" and tipping water over the branch secretary. However, if I was so inclined, I could open a new tab in firefox, bring up a Tory blog and verbally piss in it, all without leaving my chair, risking physical attack, or any awkward questions from the old bill.

The fact that the majority of people who read political blogs do not do these things is a credit to the human race, but the fact it's made easy by the technology increases the likelihood no end. Of course, cunningly, the web has corralled most of these commentators into a few vile, bear-pits of blogs where everyone else knows not to go - but they do escape sometimes.

Anyway, norms. What happens in society when we transgress norms?

There are formal sanctions: We might be put in jail. We might be physically attacked. We might lose our job. We might be thrown out of the pub. Your boy/girlfriend might dump you. Online the equivalents are so much weaker, although we are still subject to the law, even if people forget it sometimes.

There are also informal sanctions: people might tell us we're a wanker. They might stop talking to us. They may raise their eyebrows and stop inviting us over for scrabble. Seeing as online these behaviors are generally directed towards targets that they don't even see as people where's the loss in any of those?

There are certainly parts of online ethics that are to be celebrated. The constant linking and referencing of other people's work for example, the culture of sharing of videos and recommending interesting 'stuff', the ultra-social side where you keep in touch with people you rarely get to see in real life. All made possible through the technology, but the darker side needs to be recognised too.

It's not just that people do things online they'd never do elsewhere, it's the fact that it's generally accepted that makes it a 'norm', related to the ethics of wider society but somehow parallel to it, with it's own rules and nuances.

New Video from Plane Stupid

New video out from Plane Stupid. What do you think?

Warning: it's a little bit graphic.

Polar Bear from Plane Stupid on Vimeo.

It's very well made, although I'm not a great fan of polar bears as the defining icon of climate change. Perhaps a video with African children falling out of the sky is too strong even for this lot, which is fair enough.

Men's Societies? Oh God, no.

There's only one men's group I've ever heard of that I actually approve of. That was set up by a serving British soldier in Italy to discuss masculinity as a way of undercutting the culture of beastings, racism and misogyny. As I recall the army hoofed him out for his trouble.

So when I heard about the rise of Men's Societies at universities I fetched the sick bucket in preparation for an extended projectile pukathon.

There are two versions of what these Societies get up to. The first, from their detractors, says they are obsessed by "Top Gear shows, gadget fairs, beer-drinking marathons and Iron Man competitions".

The very thought makes me want to bulldoze all the universities to wipe out these enclaves and then follow up with squads of flame-thrower teams to ensure the pestilence has been eradicated. That may be an over reaction though.

The second version is from the organisers themselves. Watching Alex Linsley on News 24 just now he said "It's because men are confused about what it is to be a man, we're trying to be the best men we can be... it's a celebration."

Grrr.... it makes my blood boil! In the Guardian he's quoted as saying "There is so much conflicting information for men. There is massive confusion as to what being a man means, and how to be a good man. Should you be the sensitive all-caring, perhaps the 'feminised' man? Or should you be the hard, take no crap from anybody kind of figure?"

Here's a thought, instead of worrying about what you think you 'should' be why don't you just be yourself? If you have need of virtues work hard, be polite, honest and be more forgiving of other people's faults than I am of yours. Love your friends and try to be fair to those you can't find it in yourself to like. It's not rocket science is it?

For the first and last time in my life I agree with the editor of Loaded who said "I don't think men are remotely confused about what it takes to be a man. They just get on and do it. My generation would not sit round and build a website about being confused. It's complete navel-gazing bullshit."

Sorry Alex, but can't you just get on with being yourself and not worry about what you should or should not be? Please, no-one talk to him about his feelings, it'll just encourage him.

Quote of the day

Charlie Brooker says;

Jesus "would have doubtless vomited up his own ribcage in disgust at the mere sight of the hollow, anaesthetising capitalist moonbase that is the Westfield Centre."

No doubt he would have. I'm not a fan of shopping centres myself.

More importantly the piece is citing another example of newspapers treating advertising as if it's news, something I was railing against just the other day.

Weekending: 22nd November

Yo, brothers and sisters. Check these out!

Blogs;

• Green supremo Jon Nott has forged an eclectica.
• Then there's a daisy through concrete.
• My kinda lefty: Mellow Fellow.
  
• Fit Watch - not a weight watchers' site.
• Labour lefty Peter Kenyon
• Very simple site. Battle of Green Britain.
  

Posts and articles;

• Can I just say this post from Harry Hutton is bloody marvellous.
• Liam calls on Irish mercenaries to get out of Bolivia.
• The FT reports of imminent sanctions against Iran.
• This piece on experiments in democracy in Iceland is exciting.
• Exploding immigration myths from Claude.
  
• Bea Campbell on turning red to green in CiF.

Quote of the week (here);

"As a nation, we need to prepare for a highly sexualised, electric Swindon – a Swindon with desires and needs, a vast, androgynous, super-intelligent being, splayed over Wiltshire."

Diary dates;

• Tues 24th November Westminster Skeptics Science Activism in the New Media
• Sat 28th November Hands off the People of Iran AGM
• Sat 28th November Reclaim power: pushing for climate justice at SOAS
  
• Sat 5th December National Climate March.
• Sat 12th December Green Party London Fed Winter Party free - donations welcome.
  
• Sat 13th March 2010 Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union Conference
  

Our video of the week is one of Madame Hodge debating fascist MEP Andrew Brons. As she's got the task of facing off the strongest BNP challenge at the election we might as well see what she's made of;

Brighton Tories gone mad!

I'm of an age where I can remember the bile directed at anyone who thought using racist or sexist language was a bad thing. The right-wing press went on an extra-ordinary crusade throughout the eighties to defend it's "I'm not racist but..." position of "it's just a bit of fun" to be a foul, bigoted git.

Anyway, if you were there you'll also remember how left-wing councils were attacked for bizarre language games where no one could refer to black bin bags for fear of being sent to a re-education camp in Germaine Greer's back garden.

The fact that these were stories were by and large a pile of gross distortions or straight up lies will surprise no-one familiar with today's tabloid culture, although it would be a mistake to think the mild version we get today is in any way a relation to the rampaging hate that requests not to use foul, chauvinist language were subjected to back in the day.

The most famous bullshit example was the report of a council who'd changed the words of a nursery rhyme to "Baa, Baa Green Sheep" which is ironic given recent events in Brighton.

It has been alleged that the Tories in Brighton and Hove council have banned employees from using the word green because, as we all know, Green equals Communism and Communism is off message.

The Brighton Argos reports that "Council workers claim they are being told not to use the word green over fears it is increasing support for the Green Party. Officers at Brighton and Hove City Council say they are instead being asked to replace the word with "sustainable" or "environmentally-friendly."

"A council contractor said: "There's no official policy but since the Tory administration came into power there has been increasing talk about not using the word green because of its association with the Green Party.""

Revenge!

Tories say goodbye to "green shoots of recovery", don't think electing Cameron will be OK because "the grass is always greener", don't even consider "turning green with envy" at the right's ascendancy because the "green eyed monster" will have to get tinted contacts if he wants to rear his ugly head anywhere near the south coast.

It's 'Brighton Tories gone mad' - again - but tinkering with words wont save them from the inevitable.

Floods and Fire

My heart goes out to those who've been caught in the floods in recent days. One of the shocking things about events like this is the way it strikes without warning. Whilst there were weather reports of heavy rain few people could have prepared for the deluge that has swept Cumbria destroying bridges, creating evacuees and damaging other parts of the infrastructure.

One heroic policeman, Bill Barker, has died as he tried to protect the public by directing people off a bridge that collapsed and he was swept away in the floods. A canoeist has also died elsewhere in a storm swollen river.

When disasters like this strike the fact that we're a rich country means very little, at least until the crisis has passed and we can begin rebuilding the area. It's a warning for the future that countries like the UK are not invulnerable to catastrophic natural events.

Meanwhile, as we've just received the largest amount of rainfall in one go since records began, on the other side of the world New South Wales is in lock down preparing for its worst fire-day ever, it's premier stated "It has never been this hot, dry or windy in combination ever before".

Sadly, this kind of event is just a taste of what some people in the world have had to experience and our wealth acts as a cushion against these smaller scale disasters. There is an air unreality about disasters unless they actually happen to you. If they help us understand our place within the Earth's eco-system then some good can come out of these tragic events.

The People's Charter

I attended the People's Charter event today at Camden Civic Centre. The Charter is a rather neat idea to collate the ABCs of left policy into six main points, like the original nineteenth century Chartist document, and then get lots of people to support it.

That means it includes loads of good stuff that happens to be part of Green Party policy already (green jobs, renationalising the railways, scrap trident, that sort of thing) and is pretty much the left-wing version of motherhood and apple-pie.

There were a whole host of interesting speakers from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives. Trade union leaders like Matt Wrack of the FBU and Bob Crow of the RMT gave the affair some solidity whilst people like Pregna Patel from Southall Black Sisters and Colin Prescod from the Institute of Race Relations provided a more social, community focus.

There was far too much said to give a full and proper report back but I do remember one speaker from the floor defending the Labour Party's record by saying "The Labour Party has had no influence over government policy for some time." Well, that's inspired me to join then!

Perhaps more accurately a PCS speaker described the three main parties as "in fact, three factions of the same party." Although I'm not sure about that, as factions implies there are real differences.

Another speaker put forward the idea that not only do we have a broken society with a broken economy, we also have a broken democracy and, he said, he'd like to see the Charter adopt some demands around democratising the country - in just the way that the original Chartists had been a movement for working class political representation.

If I have criticisms it's probably that in the effort to be uncontroversial the Charter may well be considered a little bland to some, which may explain a lower than expected turnout. The other difficulty - which is not a criticism but a problem - is that, as a set of general demands that few people have as yet heard of, you can't just wander up to people in the street and say "sign up to the People's Charter?" and even if they did what would it actually mean?

You really need to move from the specific to the general. In other words you're campaigning over the closure of a local nursery and you raise the Charter within that to deepen the politics of the campaign - this way the demands have more substance because they are connected to something directly tangible.

I'd also say the crisis of political representation was the driving force for the original Charter and, in very different circumstances, that's exactly why the left needs to popularise its demands today. It's because common sense ideas that are held by millions - like renationalising the rail - are just not represented in Parliament that the need for the Charter and other initiatives arises. The Charter by its very nature has to skirt round this issue, and that blunts it as a tool.

Anyway, I'll continue to argue for the demands of the Charter, and more, and if this document helps bring to life some of these basic socialist ideas then that's all to the good.

The BNP in words and pictures

I've just watched the BNP TV ad from Barking presented by the chuckle brothers Nick and Dick putting on a display of unity to cover up the fact that Dicky Barnbrook has just taken one for the team and been firmly ejected as Parliamentary candidate by the beastly one.

Not an entirely convincing display of brotherly love, although I did enjoy the moment when Barnbrook said that to win the constituency "we need two simple things". I can't be the only person who thought he was going to follow that up with "and here we are!"

Actually, I wouldn't recommend watching the video if you're of a nervous disposition because the line "We need to flood this constituency with activists to make up for the fact that the Labour Party is flooding us with foreigners" was almost more than even I could take.

Talking of the BNP I saw this photo of the BNP conference in Wigan where they voted to ballot their members on letting non-white join the party. It made me wonder - will they also have a ballot to allow women to join too, or is that a step too far for the master race?

Just a thought, unless they have strictly segregated meetings, I've heard they really admire Sharia law so it could be...