unoriginalname38

Moving to WordPress

2007-10-27T16:52:00.000+01:00

This blog has moved to davecole.org/blog. Please update your bookmarks!

xD.

Guardian America

2007-10-25T11:13:00.000+01:00

I didn't notice this, but the Guardian has launched an American service called (wait for it) Guardian America. After the Guardian's foray into Americana in 2004 with letters to Clark County, there was criticism of its attempt to influence the American political agenda ('Dear Limey assholes') and so it is perhaps a surprise to see them heading across the Pond.

I don't think, though, that this is necessarily an attempt to build an extension of the Guardian's imagined community in America; rather, I think that someone has looked at the server logs and seen quite a lot of hits coming from the US and decided to launch a tailored site, both in terms of content to draw more visitors and advertising package to draw more money. The Guardian's various non-UK mainstream offerings do quite well, I think - the stable includes Guardian Weekly, Guardian Monthly and Money Observer - and its online offerings are probably the best amongst the media in the UK and certainly on the left in the UK, with the great GuardianUnlimited website, Comment is Free, Guardian Abroad and G24.

I hope that Guardian America will be neither the Guardian for America, nor America for (UK-) Guardian readers, but what Americans who, if they were British would read the Guardian, would read. It is, of course, a bolt-on and not a replacement, but it will be interesting to British and other audiences to see things from an AmericoGuardianista's perspective. The lack of fanfare over here suggests so.

xD.

disRESPECT - the disunity coalition

2007-10-24T20:53:00.000+01:00

I have read in various places that RESPECT is having problems. It seems that George Galloway and the SWP have fallen out and now there are letters flying around. I suspect that some poor sods are having frequent 'emergency meetings', or whatever the correct term is, at unsociable hours.

I had the misfortune to come across the SWP through the Stop the War Coalition at LSE and learnt what should have been an obvious lesson - the only aims that the SWP and SWSS have in participating in things like RESPECT and the StWC are to increase the membership of the SWP. I'm sure that the motivation behind it is actually honest, founded on a belief that only the SWP way will save us all. Unfortunately, it knackers anyone else's attempts to do anything. The 'we are all Hezbollah now' posters are a case in point - they are pretty crap PR unless you're trying to show just how militant you really are and attract people who are already half-converted.

There is a point to this post - rather, a couple of questions. Firstly; why don't the SWP contest elections as the SWP and secondly; why is the SWSS kept so separate from the workers of the SWP-proper? I'd genuinely like some enlightenment.

xD.

The Independent on 'our health crisis'

2007-10-23T23:15:00.000+01:00

The Independent runs with a story on its front page on Julian le Grand's proposals to deal with the unhealthy state of the country. One of the suggestions is

The exercise hour
Companies with more than 500 employees would be required to designate an hour in the working day as the "exercise hour" and to provide facilities to enable workers to take exercise. Employees could then "opt out" by choosing not to participate, rather than opting in as they have to do now.

I've come across ideas like that before, in a previous employer. I remember completely voluntarily and of my own accord 'opting out' of taking the statutory twenty-minute lunch break and the eleven hours' rest per working day (as per SI 2002/3128). I think I probably signed away the 48-hour week when I started there. In a lot of companies, it simply wouldn't work; there would be no commensurate reduction in workload and 'the exercise hour' would mean you'd be home an hour later.

xD.

Shibboleth

2007-10-22T23:35:00.000+01:00

My love-hate relationship with Tate Modern continues with the new large-scale work in the Turbine Hall, Shibboleth by Doris Salcedo.

The Turbine Hall is a fantastic space that allows for some large-scale works that couldn't happen anywhere else. The excellent second work in the Unilever series, Double Bind by Juan Muñoz, was sadly underrated, but some of the other installations - notably the Weather Project by Olafur Eliasson and the Flaying of Marsyas by Anish Kapoor were recognised as being very successful. Their success is in part because they are large, dramatic and accessible; they offer plenty to be read into them and bring people in because they are unusual. They are easy to engage with but are not banal, facile or obvious. I'm afraid that Shibboleth is.

It would perhaps be useful to provide a description of Shibboleth. It is, of course, a crack, starting at the top of the main entrance to the Turbine Hall on the ramp and descending, while widening, deepening and branching along the length of the room. Looking into the crack, you can see the wire-reinforced concrete construction of the floor and the sides of the crack are not parallel, giving a convoluted and turbulent depth to its wider sections.

My suspicion is that we are meant to understand that racism can tell us something about our society by looking into the disfigurement it causes; that some people are very close to the split in society while others are so far way from it that it will not impede their course; and that the foundations of our society are shaky.

In reverse order, while the foundations of our society may or may not be shaky, the presence of a crack in the floor of Tate Modern has in no way affected the structural integrity of the building. I stood on the roof with nairy a tremor. Indeed, it gives the opposite meaning to the artist's intentions, saying that society can continue despite major damage to its foundations or that racism isn't really that big a deal.

Secondly, the position of the crack suggests that there are varying distances from racism or, indeed, any similar division in society. While people may not perceive themselves as affected by racism, its potency is in that it cuts across society; if you are not aware of it or do not believe it exists, you are even more likely to be stumbling across it while if you do 'see' it you cannot be removed from it. Equally, racism is not the only social schism and if such divides must be represented two-dimensionally on the floor of a gallery, a series of islands, some linked by bridges, formed by cross-cutting cracks would be more appropriate.

Finally, it is wrong - dead wrong - to depict society as a flat surface disrupted by the scar of racism. Racism, if it is anything, is the search for that very monoculture and I would not want to live in such a barren and featureless society that we can only learn more about it through its fractures; moreover, I do not believe that is so and those aspects of the Tate that deal with the fullness of the human condition are testament enough to that.

In short, the interpretation of racism and colonialism that Shibboleth gives us is simplistic. 'The history of racism', Salcedo writes, 'runs parallel to the history of modernity, and is its untold dark side'. This immediately implies that racism is not prior to modernity; given that the existence of nations implies national conflict, there is a good argument to say that racism existed well before modernity that is reinforced by looking at, say, the views held of the Macedonians by the Attic Greeks.

If we overlook that, Shibboleth still falls down. Racism is not a single divisor; nor is it just between the west and the rest. I won't go into any great length, but the complex racial relationships in the Spanish empire, with complex hierarchies of pensinsular, criollo, mestizo and indio¹. To say that racism is just that is not only ignorant but dangerous - it allows no conceptual space for anti-Semitism or brown-on-black (and vice-versa) racism.

As I said at the beginning, the visions of racism, division and society that Shibboleth gives us are banal, facile and obvious. They are also wrong.

I would not for a moment say that Shibboleth should not have been attempted but it reminds us that the price of good art is bad art.

Sorry, Doris.

xD.

Songs in the key of B

2007-10-16T13:27:00.000+01:00

I have stumbled and mumbled my way onto a meme on Chris Dillow's website - top ten songs beginning with a letter of the alphabet. I'm choosing the letter 'B'.

1. Brown Eyed Handsome Man - Buddy Holly and the Crickets
2. Bridge Over Troubled Water - Simon and Garfunkel
3. Blue Suede Shoes - Elvis Presley
4. Bleed Like Me - Garbage
5. Blitzkrieg Bop - Ramones
6. Bummer - Scarling
7. Ball and Chain - Janis Joplin/Big Brother and the Holding Company
8. Baby Please Don't Go - Muddy Waters
9. Bela Lugosi's Dead - Bauhaus
10. Berliner Messe - Arvo Part

The last one is cheating slightly, as it's in eight parts, but I'm having it anyway.

xD.

Dear Mr Milburn

2007-10-16T00:00:00.000+01:00

Dear Mr Milburn,

I've heard things of late. Apparently, you're not happy. Indeed, you're so unhappy that you're thinking of breaking your silence and saying how unhappy you are.

It would appear that a few days, perhaps a couple of weeks, of poor polling and difficulties for the Prime Minister mean that you feel ht need to declare, publicly, your dissatisfaction. Not long ago, the polls were strongly in our favour. Are we seriously to believe that just a short-lived and temporary phenomenon has caused you, relatively soon into Gordon Brown's premiership and with perhaps two years until a General Election, to break ranks, or do we believe that you are taking this, first opportunity to present itself to oppose the leadership of the party?

I would take this moment to remind you that many of the problems the Conservative Party have had since 1997 are due to senior figures within that organisation not being prepared to accept outcomes that do not precisely align with their expectations. Your pronouncement could be couched positively, but instead you attack, split and damage. It is my belief that further statements of the kind accompanying your website, 2020 Vision, would damage Labour in the way that the Hard Left did with their total unwillingness to compromise in the 1980s.

I have some experience of how the media work and I've come across that magical word, 'leaking'. I think you've leaked to the media your sentiments in the hope of drumming up a story. I don't know why; perhaps you've too much time on your hands and you're trying to recapture past glories when people paid attention to what you said or perhaps you are just incredibly tribal, with loyalties to a lost leader who will no more glad mornings see. Either way, I don't care; the drip, drip of such stories will damage and is damaging the Labour Party.

A period of silence on your part would be welcome.

With every best wish,

Dave Cole.

Tasteless money-grabbing

2007-10-15T16:35:00.000+01:00

The Tories have failed to prevent an £8.3m bequest to them being overturned on the grounds of mental illness. The details are unimportant; while I feel that it's unfortunate that the Conservatives felt the need to contest what seems, prima facie, a clear, if tragic, case. It is not, though, the Conservatives that, in this instance, I am accusing of 'tasteless money-grabbing'; rather, it is the system that forces parties to go after every last penny.

I am no advocate of state funding of parties, but the financial situation of the parties is parlous, opening them to undue influence from single individuals. A good start would be for the parties to stop advertising on billboards. Quite apart from, as Adlai Stevenson put it, that "the idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal is the ultimate indignity to the democratic process", I'm not sure that it's effective; the image a party presents is developed over the parliament preceding an election, not in the few short weeks leading up to it. It may even be self-defeating, as people are probably smart enough to realise that if political parties believe they can secure votes with a clever logo or a catchy slogan, they're probably not going to be doing detailed, community-based policy formulation.

A rather better solution would be for the parties - all parties - to focus on membership. We could all learn a useful lesson from Howard Dean, who, with average donations of less than US$80 in the famously moneyed world of American politics, beat the previous Democratic record for single-quarter donations by US$4.5m (the previous record of US$10.3m having been held since 1995 by one William Jefferson Clinton). Beyond the financial factor, I am of the opinion that one friend saying that they are a member of a party and are voting for it is worth more than a party political broadcast and that a knock at the door - which requires motivated people to do the knocking - is worth more than an election address.

Of course, to do that, you have to show that it's worth the party member's while; I'd suggest, for various reasons that we're all familiar with, that this is not happening at the moment.

xD.

Changing my opinions on freedom of speech?

2007-10-11T22:20:00.000+01:00

For a long time, I supported the 'no-platform for the BNP' policy, specifically at the LSE Students' Union. It meant, in essence, that the BNP were not to be invited to speak on any LSE SU platform and that no member of the LSE SU could speak on a platform with a member of the BNP other than in a personal capacity. In essence, it was the same idea as a cordon sanitaire.

Two recent events are leading me to think about that position anew; Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's speech at Columbia university and the Alisher Usmanov affair.

One of the arguments behind the no-platform policy was that the BNP could use the association with the LSE's brand to make themselves appear more legitimate. Indeed, I've heard it said that the LSE's most valuable piece of property is the red square device. That would not seem to be the case with Ahmedinejad - he was described by Lee Bollinger as "exhibiting all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator" and was mocked for saying that

"In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country. We don't have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it".

I'd say that, at least in the Western media, he was made to look foolish in asserting some of his dogmatic beliefs against pretty conclusive evidence to the contrary (such as Iran's policy of executing homosexuals). It didn't make him seem less dangerous, but it did show that his assertions are based on an, at best, tangential relationship with reality. I don't know how it would play in Iran.

One of the comparisons I would draw between Ahmedinejad and the BNP - other than Holocaust denial and homophobia - is that their statements are probably not aimed at people who don't share their opinions; rather, they are aimed at rallying the 'true believer' and swaying those who tend that way.

While Ahmedinejad was made to look a fool (a dangerous fool, but a fool nonetheless) in the Western media, I don't know how it would have played at home. What is certain is that Ahmedinejad didn't gain any legitimacy as a statesperson by appearing at Columbia.

In short, I am not sure which way a utilitarian argument would fall on the arguments made above. However, recent events have, as I mentioned, meant that I am increasingly likely to come down against the no platform policy. I should say that I don't consider a no platform policy per se to be against free speech; there are untold ways of communicating one's message, particularly with the advent of the internet. Individual organisations refusing to allow the association of their name with a given political position only becomes problematic when free speech as a whole comes under threat.

Enter stage left, Alisher Usmanov. The entire sorry sage, including one oligarch, a law firm, some bloggers and the former ambassador to Uzbekistan can be found here. Usmanovgate is only one example of the various problems with UK libel law (information and solutions from the Ministry of Truth) I am increasingly of the opinion that no platform is heading in the wrong direction.

xD.

House Resolution 106

2007-10-11T20:39:00.000+01:00

I agree with Ewan Watt that the US House of Representatives' Foreign Relations Committee should not have recognized the Armenian Genocide as such, but perhaps for slightly different reasons. Ewan is, in foreign policy terms, very much a realist and I do agree that the results of the Committee's decision have already been profoundly negative - Turkey has summoned its ambassador to Washington back to Ankara for 'a week or ten days of consultation' but has stopped short of a recall. With US troops deployed in Iraq, a country that borders Turkey, Turkey's strategic position and role and the desire not to alienate a country that teeters between West and East or to fuel the continuing problems between Turkey and Armenia - Karabakh and Baku-Ceyhan for instance - it seems like a poor decision.

Nevertheless, fiat justicia ruat coeli stands as a principle; if it is just, I feel it should be done, even though the consequences are uncomfortable, shall we say; to do otherwise is hypocritical and leads to a host of problems in international relations.

I question why the Committee felt the need to address the issue at all. Ewan also identifies the answer - special interest lobbying - but the implications haven't been thought through. There are many other crimes - some committed by the US - that could be condemned.

More importantly, it is not the role of a Government to decide what history is; there can be no official version without grave risk of a government interfering unjustifiably in the process of discussion and debate. Equally, as Nye Bevan put it, 'this is my truth; tell me yours'; whether ordained by the state or not, there is no one, true version of history, only arguments that are more or less persuasive. When the arguments are emotionally and geopolitically loaded, officially recognising a term can only cause problems and is, from a state, philosophically invalid.

As a note, I think it is wrong to use a category to encompass the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust; they are both sui generis, IMHO.

The Committee chair, Tom Lantos, put it well in his comments ahead of the vote:

Today we are not considering whether the Armenian people were persecuted and died in huge numbers at the hands of Ottoman troops in the early 20th Century. There is unanimity in the Congress and across the country that these atrocities took place. If the resolution before us stated that fact alone, it would pass unanimously. The controversy lies in whether to make it United States policy at this moment in history to apply a single word – genocide – to encompass this enormous blot on human history.

xD.

Letting in the Iraqi employees

2007-10-10T15:06:00.000+01:00

I went last night to the meeting at Parliament in support of Iraqis employed by British forces in Iraq and their quest for asylum. Everyone who attended the meeting , I think all would agree, came away with three things; firstly, that David Miliband's actions are a start but are nowhere near enough; secondly, that the situation is both desperate and urgent; and that Britain has a moral obligation and a practical necessity that should motivate quick, deliberate action.

The announcement made by Mr Miliband falls on a couple of counts. Firstly, the length of time served should be irrelevant - UK plc put these people up to it and they are in danger as a result. Secondly, there are lots of people who have worked for more than twelve months for the British in Iraq but in six month batches for different regiments on rotation as part of TELIC.

Mark Brockway's well-informed and emotional speech shows the depth of the problem; people are at risk and dying now and delays for any reason are unacceptable. The breadth of knowledge that he and Andrew Alderson showed of the reality on the ground and how people might be practically helped in leaving, including verification processes, was remarkable and I hope that they will be heard by the Government. As many people commented, the Danish put us to shame - when they withdrew from Iraq, they took all their people with them and worried about paperwork later.

The moral case is overwhelming; we are the reason for these people being in danger and we have the capacity to help them. Practically, failure to act will further damage the reputation of the UK in the area and make it harder for us to recruit local people to help us in Afghanistan, where we appear to be committed for some years to come, and any other conflicts we may end up in going forward.

Evidently, no planning was given to ongoing support for Iraqis who worked for Britain in Iraq; apparently this was also the case in the Balkans. When we have found a resolution to the current problem, we shall have to keep up the pressure to prevent it happening again; everyone agreed that, in the future, there should be clear contracts that set out the responsibilities of both parties.

Thanks must go to the three MPs who spoke on the panel, Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda), Lynne Featherstone (LibDem, Hornsey & Wood Green) and Ed Vaizey (Con, Wantage), as well as to Julian Brazier MP (Con, Canterbury) who spoke from the floor and the other MPs who came in for some of the meeting, as well as to The Times for their support of this campaign. I think that everyone took on board that the twelve-month rule is unfair and unworkable and that further action is necessary.

I found the most moving speech of the night to be that of an Iraqi exile, talking about his experiences and the death of his loved ones for having worked for the UK. Like many other interpreters, he was an educated, erudite person who only wanted and only wants to rebuild his country.

xD.

Government recognises the problem but doesn't do enough

2007-10-08T16:56:00.000+01:00

Two pieces of news on the Iraqi employees front. Firstly, the meeting has been moved to the Attlee Suite, Portcullis House. It will still take place at 1900 tomorrow, Tuesday 9th.

Secondly, the Government has committed itself to supporting Iraqis who have worked for the British in Iraq for over a year; that is woefully insufficient. It recognises the problem - that people who are seen as 'collaborators' and their families face death, but won't help all of them.

xD.

Iraqi employees: maintain the pressure

2007-10-08T09:24:00.000+01:00

Two important posts from Dan Hardie:

Maintain the pressure

I am not a doctor

xD.

2007-10-07T15:07:00.000+01:00

The Observer reports that the Government is only letting one out of every six Iraqis - those who have worked for Britain in Iraq for over a year - into the UK. That leaves an awful lot of people, including families of people who worked for Britain - stuck in Iraq facing torture and death.

It's a cop-out from the Government and I hope that pressure will be maintained on them, now that they have accepted the principle that people who worked for the UK in Iraq are in danger, not to turn any of them away.

xD.

We must let them in

2007-10-06T21:47:00.000+01:00

The Times reports what appears to be a positive story about Iraqis who worked for Britain in Iraq being let in. Unfortunately, I understand that it's premature and that no decision has been made. Please do still come along to the meeting this Tuesday, 9th October, from 1900 in Committee Room Fourteen at the Houses of Parliament.

'What neglected issues should US presidential candidates address more' meme

2007-10-05T19:45:00.000+01:00

Ashok has started an interesting meme - what neglected issues should US presidential candidates address? The one I would go for is an area that affects most other policies - federalism.

I think that the US systems is based on the federal government not having many competencies. Whether this is right or wrong, it is how the system was originally designed and a lot of the constitutional infrastructure still supports that position. There is too much going on at the federal level. I believe it's damaging both the Democrats' chances and the US polity as a whole.

To start with, the polity as a whole. The excess power of the federal government and its invocation as a panacea has led to quite spectacular amounts of pork barrel spending. The amount involved and the damage it causes is detailed at the CAGW. I would note that it is unfortunate that it is mostly 'rightwingers' rather than 'leftwingers' who oppose pork, which is very unfortunate. Given that the Democrats generally want to spend more than the Republicans, they should be even more interested in making government spending both efficient and effective.

As an example of another effect it has in a particular policy area, I want to look at abortion. I think Roe v Wade should be overturned for three reasons. Firstly, judges should not make policy. A constitution, IMHO, should set the framework in which decisions are to be made or, if you like, the rules of the game, but not what decisions are made as it reduces the effectiveness of democracy and the likelihood of people engaging with democracy (and not just in the ballot box) I recognise that any rules will have an impact, but the manner and extent of judicial decisionmaking in the US is grossly excessive. Secondly, it reduces debate about the issue to legal niceties and not the substance of the issue; if the option is accepted of dodging the argument is allowed for this, it can spread to other areas. Thirdly, and here I'm being partisan, it would benefit the Democrats and have no effect on the availability of abortions. I am given to understand that, in many states, abortion is effectively unavailable because of cost, social pressure and distance. I contend that this is not the case in the states that would permit abortion. It would, as it is a dogwhistle issue, diminish the religious right's support for the GOP. It would have a similar, but less pronounced, effect on the Democrats. All the while, it would be possible to debate the issue rather than abstruse legal principles.

This principle runs across a whole range of areas; there is not going to be wholesale change of the US Constitution, but there is a real possibility of power being devolved downwards and dogwhistle issues being less shrill.

I'm tagging Ewan Watt, Matt Sinclair and Iain Dale.

xD.

Gingerbread haka

2007-10-03T09:03:00.000+01:00

The New Zealand Bakery of the Year Contest (words I never thought I'd write) has gingerbread men doing the haka. It's wonderful, even if slightly cute gingerbread men doing a throat-slitting action disturbs me.

xD.

Bong...

2007-10-02T11:42:00.000+01:00

In some ways, I am incorrigibly British and I have the great good fortune to live within hearing distance of Big Ben. I was delighted to hear last night, for the first time since August 11th, the sonorous chimes on the hour. The sound of Big Ben and the Shipping Forecast are, I would go so far as to say,

not only fragments, but characteristic fragments, of the English scene.

Courtesy of Wikipedia, the tune played by Big Ben, Westminster Quarters.

xD.

Time to let them in

2007-10-01T19:01:00.000+01:00

Let's say that a company comes and offers you a job. There aren't any other jobs and you need to feed yourself and your family. It's a dangerous job, but the company offers to protect you. Then the company decides it doesn't need you. Not only are you out of work, but you're now being hunted down by people who don't like that company. They refuse to help you.

Would you work for that company again? Would you work for that company for the first time if you saw how they treated ex-employees?

Probably not. The company in question is the UK, the employees are Iraqis employed in Iraq as translators and so on and if, for no other reason than it will make it impossible to recruit local staff anywhere in the world again, should we need to, we should give them and their families asylum in the UK. We can't turn them away.

xD.

America won't turn them away...

2007-10-01T16:04:00.000+01:00

...and neither should we. Good news - the US is making it easier for Iraqis who worked for the US in Iraq to gain refugee status.

Story courtesy of Norm, via Mr Eugenides.

xD.

Election timing

2007-10-01T13:30:00.000+01:00

I don't think that Gordon Brown should call an early election for three reasons.

Firstly, the UK system is too presidential or, more accurately, parly-presidential. There is a lot of talk about Gordon Brown needing a mandate. The perception may be that he does, but that perception reinforces the concentration of power around the PM and the Cabinet. The mandate is for the Labour party, not a given leader.

Secondly, it was not so long ago that people were talking about hung parliaments and how many seats the SNP would secure. Labour has, in a funny way, had a good summer; flooding, foot & mouth, bluetongue and Northern Rock have given the Government the chance to act decisively and given the opposition scant chances to oppose any of the measures being taken by Labour. I am no expert on finance, but I think the action on Northern Rock - guaranteeing deposits - and the extension of savings protection to £35,000 has gone down well with the public, who increasingly see that things go on in the markets that are beyond Government's control. Events (dear boy, events) could swing round once Parliament returns to scrutinise the Government's actions over the summer and the Conservatives can start to generate news with their conference in Blackpool. Add in poor weather and the picture doesn't look so rosy.

Thirdly, there are mayoral and local elections coming up next year. I would like to see the elections take place at the same time, if for no other reason than that it will increase turnout.

I feel that Mr Brown should wait until he has a more concrete set of accomplished policies before going to the country based on the success of those policies.

Update 1422: Just seen this on Peter Kenyon's blog.

xD.

Bloggerheadsgate continues

2007-09-27T22:19:00.000+01:00

Tim Ireland is back online at b-heads.blogspot.com. In other news, the London Friends of Craig Murray report that Schillings are not going to sue Craig Murray because they don't want to give him any more publicity. While that's good for Murray, the words 'stable door', 'horse' and 'bolted' spring to mind.

SpyBlog has also kindly posted Schillings' IP range. It's 217.33.207.160 - 217.33.207.191. You can use a widget like Tracksy to see who's visiting your website.

Tom Wise MEP (UKIP/I&D, East of England) has, under the protection of parliamentary privilege, repeated some of the accusations made against Usmanov by Murray. The Atlantic Free Press has an MP3 of it here. The transcript of Mr Wise's speech is now online.

xD.

Top five political influences meme

2007-09-27T19:14:00.000+01:00

The People's Commissar of Enlightenment has tagged me with the top five political influences meme. In no particular order, they probably are:

The London School of Economics and Political Science: I spent five years at LSE and learnt an awful lot there. Its unique mix of people - it's very international, but, unlike most universities, has more postgrads than undergrads - and the culture of appreciating learning shaped me in ways that I'm only beginning to appreciate. Some of the courses I took there are leading to continued interests in a couple of academic fields.

The LSE Students' Union: I ran in more election races at LSE than I care to recall, won some and re-wrote the Union's Codes of Practice. I learnt a lot about what motivates people. I learnt a bit about what motivates me. I was part of the day-to-day politics of the SU and enjoyed it for the most part. I think I did some good along the way, as well. I learned to think through the Debate Society.

Simón José Antonio de la Santísima Trinidad Bolívar y Palacios: Simón Bolívar, liberator of much of South America and something of a hero for me. I think on many issues he is wrong, but honestly wrong. Mostly, the conflict between theory and reality and how he strove to reconcile the two fascinate me. He is also a good memento mori: at one point, he was the Great Liberator; at his death, he was reviled by all but his closest friends; he has since been rehabilitated and many different political traditions try to lay claim to him.

Linus Torvalds: probably did more to promote open source technologies than anyone else and in so doing gave rise to a political philosophy that I am increasingly buying in to as I see the benefits it offers.

Insanity: is probably too strong a word, but there have been times when I have been, ahem, mentally interesting. It changes your perspective on things.

No-one said they had to be people, and the above are probably in the top five for me.

I tag Tiberius Gracchus, Matt Sinclair, Vino, Erik Ringmar and Colin Byrne.

xD.

Boris' primary

2007-09-27T15:48:00.000+01:00

According to the Conservative Party, 'over twenty thousand' people took part in the primary for the Conservative candidacy to be London Mayor. Guido Fawkes gives a breakdown of the results:

Boris Johnson - 15,661
Victoria Borwick - 1,869
Andrew Boff - 1,674
Warwick Lightfoot - 609

Three things to note. Firstly, the figures above add up to 19,813, so the spoil rate could be around 1%. Secondly, Boris was on around 75% of the vote. While it's a pretty convincing win by any standards, it's not impossible that someone else could have beaten him if people hadn't seen it as a foregone conclusion. As I said a while ago, it was not a fair election as CCO was expressing a clear preference for one candidate.

The most interesting thing, though, is the dismal failure of the campaign to excite people. The population of London is on the order of seven and one-half million. The Conservative Party nationally has about 290,000 members. If they are evenly distributed across the UK (and I know you can't really make that assumption, but run with me), that would suggest around thirty-six thousand Tory members in London. The primary was a dismal failure; with only one candidate with any chance of winning, people did not engage and there was no serious discussion in around the Conservative Party on policies for London. It was a missed opportunity; I hope that Mr Johnson does not try to capitalise on having had an open primary during his election.

xD.

Episcopal idiocy

2007-09-26T18:00:00.000+01:00

His Grace the Archbishop of Maputo, Francisco Chimoio, has said that some condoms imported from Europe are impregnated (no pun intended) with HIV while some ARVs are similarly infected to "finish off" the Africans. No evidence is forthcoming about this, so I would suggest that His Grace is ignorant, wilfully or otherwise, or a liar.

I often wonder why the Word of God needs to be helped along with deception and obfuscation. I have stood up before to say that, while I don't agree with it, there is a valid argument against abortion from a religious point of view¹; I would say the same about the use of condoms. Quite why the Roman Catholic church - or some senior representatives of it - feel the need to lie in this manner is beyond me.

xD.

1 - in a general meeting of the LSE Students' Union, I unsuccessfully proposed an amendment to a motion on abortion saying that people could have valid, religious objections to abortion.

PS Yes, I know the title should have been Archiepiscopal idiocy.

Thoughts on nationalism

2007-09-26T17:43:00.000+01:00

As I understand it, the modernist take on nationalism requires that the nation is not prior to nationalism; that is to say, nationalism may cause the nation or something causes both the nation and nationalism to come about. The nation cannot come first and therefore cannot cause the nationalism.

There are many, competing definitions of nationalism. Nationalism is a bit like a sausage – everyone knows what it is, but no-one can really describe one. Nevertheless, I like Benedict Anderson's definition from Imagined Communities: "an imagined political community [that is] imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign".

To the extent of those writers with which I am familiar, the causative factor occurs exclusively in modernity. Those competing writers look for different features of modernity to explain the rise of nations and nationalism; variously print capitalism, the bureaucratic state, industrialisation in general and so on. Unfortunately, it ignores certain important facts.

Firstly, there were nations before the modern age. Two of Queen Elizabeth I's most famous speeches, that at Tilbury and the Golden Speech, are appeals to national sentiment. The speech at Tilbury was directed to the common soldier on the ground and so must, I think, represent an upwards affiliation which precludes the common idea of the upper and priestly classes having some sort of trans-continental affiliation and the lower classes being vertically stratified by their villages.

I would say that there was also a nation at the time of the Dutch Revolt, as shown in the Oath of Abjuration, and I think (although I'm not sure) that you could say that there has been Armenian nationalism since the fifth century (or perhaps as early as the fourth with the adoption of Christianity as the world's first state religion); certainly, the autonomy and recognition of Christianity that Armenia was granted under the Ottomans would suggest something deeper than recognition of 'a person at the top'.

I would also contend that there was city-nationalism and pan-Hellenic nationalism (as opposed to Macedonians and/or Barbarians) in Classical Greece. All of these are imagined, political, limited and sovereign communities. City-nationalism and pan-Hellenic nationalism are not 'stacked nationalisms' but operate, I think, at the same level, and are co-sovereign, with one coming to the fore over the other depending on the situation at a given time.

There is a very simple riposte to the nation not possibly being prior to nationalism in the form of the Jews; there was a political desire to return to the traditional Jewish homeland since the diaspora resulting from the Jewish-Roman war of c. 70CE that formed classical Zionism. Equally, I think that Italians (by which I mean people from approximately modern Italy) in the Roman empire were a dominant nation in a multi-national empire in which some other groups formed as nations and some did not. For that reason, I disagree with Anthony D. Smith.

I do not know a huge amount about Zionism, so forgive me, fair reader, if I make some mistakes here. As I understand it, Herzl, in the late nineteenth century and partially as a result of the Dreyfus Affair, catalysed the formation of modern Zionism. What he did not do was create, ex nihilo, Zionism but build on an existing national feeling. The nationalism came, at least in a political sense, after the nation.

There is a very valid discourse to be had about the effects of the modern period and various features of industrialisation on the development of nations and nationalism; however, to say that nations are conceptually impossible before nationalism and that neither existed before the modern era is, I think, simply wrong. While it is true that nationalism grew in depth and spread across Europe at the same time as the Industrial Revolution, the two, to an extent, fed off each other. It is equally wrong to assume, as I think people do, that the rise of nationalism is a step in a teleological chain.

Given those two facts, I think it is fair to say that there is no single type of nationalism. That much, I think, is uncontroversial, as people have distinguished between civic and ethnic nationalism for some time. That simple dichotomy is, I think, grossly insufficient.

Oppressive, reactive, liberation, linguistic, cultural, state-seeking, state-having and various other adjectives can usefully be applied to nations and nationalism. I think that having more definitions, but each being more pared down, would be a lot more useful than the current catch-all definition of 'nationalism'. After all, if I can return to an earlier metaphor, both the bratwurst and the Cumberland are sausages, but they are quite different beasts.

There is somewhere here an explanation for the failure of state-nationalism or geographically-delimited nationalism to take hold in, for instance, Africa. I would contend that the transportation of European nationalist ideals by people such as Jomo Kenyatta failed in many cases because they were trying to import a new nationalism onto somewhere that had nationalisms already operating – what might be called tribal loyalties. These nations already had members spread out across externally imposed boundary lines and so would not readily conform to something that came to replace them with a geographic definition of nationality that excluded co-nationals.

This adds into dependency theory and complex sequencing; I will not go into that at any length other than to say that the political canvas against which a nation must develop, flourish, exist or fail have changed and will continue to change.

It may be too early in the day, but I wonder if new forms of communication and collaboration may open a conceptual door to new nations. The development of print capitalism is held to be a key moment in the development of nations by Anderson and others; could the internet do the same in future? I do not mean by communication, as this is the same as before, only faster, but by collaboration – Wikipedia, for instance? It is an imagined community and has political aims (or, at least, some of its principles have political and philosophical implications) that could, conceivably, have some sort of sovereignty over how its members act.

xD.

A motto for Britain

2007-09-26T11:34:00.000+01:00

Talk is going around about a motto for Britain - apparently Mr Brown welcomes a debate about a motto and the BBC News Magazine is looking for suggestions. The best option is, I think, not to have a motto. The United Kingdom is the only country that I can think of, now that the USSR no longer exists, that doesn't use the geographical name for itself - France, Germany, Turks and Caicos and so on. I know that technically it's 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', but no-one really calls it that. It'd be nice to keep with that idiosyncrasy.

One of the most famous national mottoes is France's liberté, égalité, fraternité. It was introduced at the time of the French Revolution as a way of setting the new regime apart from the old. Herein lies the problem in choosing a motto: why now? There has been no revolution, no great change and we've been plodding along for some time now without a motto. It is an attempt to create a 'new Britishness' that is simply not there to be created and would, I think, annoy one set of people if it were too 'politically correct' and annoy another set if it were too 'patriotic'.

Equally, it would be very hard to come up with something worth having. I don't think that "liberté, égalité, fraternité" would be opposed by many people nowadays but it was (literally) revolutionary at the time it was coined. How do you sum up a state made up of four states, one of which might leave and one of which might join another country, that, having had just about everyone in Europe invade it at one time or another, is the original mongrel nation?

xD.

Fred Thompson and spilling blood for liberty

2007-09-23T23:28:00.000+01:00

The base of Fred Thompson's comments about the USA having spilt more blood for liberty than any other state is ridiculous and, where it is going, dangerous.. Most Americans alive today were not alive in 1945; they are at least one step removed from it. Rather more, though, were determined not to fight in Vietnam, even though there was a draft. Thompson cannot claim the one without the other. Equally, he cannot ignore one part of history (referring to my first paragraph) while accepting another part unless he has a damned good argument for a delineation.

I wonder if Fred Thompson includes in Americans who died for liberty all those who died in the American Civil War; I wonder if he counts every lash felt by a slave; I wonder if he counts every victim of a lynching. I wonder if, in the teleological march towards modern American liberty, all the deaths of American Indians count as having been towards liberty.

Lots of political approval ratings subtract the negative from the positive. I wonder if Fred Thompson subtracts from those who died for liberty those who died in the Mexican-American War, or who were tortured to death by graduates of the School of the Americas, or the Philippines or countless other, half-forgotten battles. I wonder if the number is still positive.

I would add that claiming that the modern US polity is stronger because some people who happened to have been born on US soil died a few decades around is an argument so poor as to be beneath contempt, particularly when many of those who died were blacks who were denied the liberties they were sent overseas to fight for.

I would also say that many of the wars were not wars for liberty. To call WW1 such a war is, I think, mistaken; it was the last of the imperial wars and was as much about defending the interests of the elites in the various combatant states as it was about liberty, even if it was dressed up in the clothes of righteous indignation.

WW2 is slightly different, as for the Europeans it was a war for survival and so it is hard to distill the purity of any motives. That does not apply to the US, although you could say that, as part of the justification for the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that it would reduce the length of the war, that the people who died in those two cities also died for liberty.

As it happens, I'm quite the Atlanticist, but I dislike nationalistic tubthumping. It may well be true that more Americans have died for liberty than children of any other state. That matters not a jot; while we may learn a lot from past wars, it does not mean the current or next wars are 'for liberty'. More worryingly, it promotes a nationalistic tone that can only be damaging in international relations. It leads to idiocy like calling for Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to be denied entry to the USA in order to attend the United Nations, as Thompson is currently doing. Ahmedinejad is undeserving of anything more than, as Christopher Hitchens would have had it, selling pencils from a cup, but he is the leader of a member state of the United Nations and no less offensive than some of the other people - Fidel Castro included - who have visited the US from time to time.

xD.

92nd best left-of-centre blog

2007-09-23T19:07:00.000+01:00

I am absolutely delighted and more than just a little surprised to have read on Iain Dale's blog that I am, it would seem, the ninety-second best left-of-centre blog. I'll aim for thirty-eight next year...

xD.

Quote of the day

2007-09-22T10:59:00.001+01:00

"The majority of laws are only privileges, which is to say, a tribute by all to the convenience of a few"

-Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments

xD.

We're all Bloggerheads now - part two

2007-09-21T23:27:00.000+01:00

I hadn't really heard of Alisher Usamnov until today; I'd seen his name mentioned on a couple of blogs, but he was barely on the radar. I suspect the same was true for quite a lot of Arsenal fans - perhaps heard a bit about him, maybe read about him on a blog, nothing more.

His SLAPP against Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads has backfired spectacularly. MediaGuardian has picked it up and Boris Johnson's site is down, too. With no disrespect to Bob Piper (whose politics I vastly prefer to Johnson's and whose site has also gone down), the prospective Tory candidate for Mayor of London is pretty high profile. I'm sure this will make the Evening Standard, which will alert Londoners straightaway to Usmanov's, ahem, position regarding free speech.

Mr Eugenides sums things up well:

I don't give a shit about this character, or Arsenal FC (no offence to any Gooners out there); nor do I share all or even most of Tim Ireland or Craig Murray's politics. But that's far from the point. If you can be silenced for calling a businessman a crook, then you can be silenced for calling a politician a crook, too. Then it's everyone's problem.

(emphasis added).

Bloggers also react because it immediately affects them; while I don't want to diminish the importance of what Usamnov has done, I wish as many people would support the Iraqi interpreters.

I hope that this will raise awareness of SLAPPs, as the case of the McLibel Two did. However, I rather doubt that it will prevent Usamnov from gaining the blocking stake in Arsenal that he desires unless pressure is put on existing shareholders not to sell to him because of his contempt for freedom of speech.

xD.

We're all Bloggerheads now

2007-09-21T15:48:00.000+01:00

One of my favourite blogs, Bloggerheads, has been taken down because of the actions of one Alisher Usamnov. From Chicken Yoghurt:

Tim Ireland’s Bloggerheads site is currently down after his webhost pulled the plug. You can thank the latest Russian (that should be Uzbek) billionaire to reach the UK. The details will come out in due course.[...]
This also means that the family of websites that Tim and Clive (whose site is also down) look after are also currently AWOL. So if you’re missing the online presences of Craig Murray, Bob Piper or prospective candidate for London mayor Boris Johnson, now you know why they’ve gone.

Sufficiently worrying is this that Iain Dale (another blog I like), who does not at all get on with Tim Ireland, has written in support of Bloggerheads.

Other people talking about this: Curious Hamster, Pickled Politics, Harry’s Place, Tim Worstall, Dizzy, Iain Dale, Ten Percent, Blairwatch, Davide Simonetti, Earthquake Cove, Turbulent Cleric (who suggests dropping a line to the FA about Mr Usmanov), Mike Power, Jailhouse Lawyer, Suesam, Devil’s Kitchen, The Cartoonist, Falco, Casualty Monitor, Forever Expat, Arseblog, Drink-soaked Trots (and another), Pitch Invasion, Wonko’s World, Roll A Monkey, Caroline Hunt, Westminster Wisdom, Chris K, Anorak, Mediawatchwatch, Norfolk Blogger, Chris Paul, Indymedia (with a list of Craig Murray’s articles that are currently unavailable), Obsolete, Tom Watson, Cynical Chatter, Reactionary Snob, Mr Eugenides, Matthew Sinclair, The Select Society, Liberal England, Davblog, Peter Gasston Pitch Perfect, Adelaide Green Porridge Cafe, Lunartalks, Tygerland, The Crossed Pond, Our Kingdom, Big Daddy Merk, Daily Mail Watch, Graeme’s, Random Thoughts, Nosemonkey, Matt Wardman, Politics in the Zeros, Love and Garbage, The Huntsman, Conservative Party Reptile, Ellee Seymour, Sabretache, Not A Sheep, Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion, The People’s Republic Of Newport, Life, the Universe & Everything, Arsenal Transfer Rumour Mill, The Green Ribbon, Blood & Treasure, The Last Ditch, Areopagitica, Football in Finland, An Englishman’s Castle, Freeborn John, Eursoc, The Back Four, Rebellion Suck!, Ministry of Truth, ModernityBlog, Beau Bo D’Or, Scots and Independent, The Splund, Bill Cameron, Podnosh, Dodgeblogium, Moving Target, Serious Golmal, Goonerholic, The Spine, Zero Point Nine, Lenin’s Tomb, The Durruti Column, The Bristol Blogger, ArseNews, David Lindsay, Quaequam Blog!, On A Quiet Day…, Kathz’s Blog, England Expects, Theo Spark, Duncan Borrowman, Senn’s Blog, Katykins, Jewcy, Kevin Maguire, Stumbling and Mumbling, Famous for 15 megapixels, Ordovicius, Tom Morris, AOL Fanhouse, Doctor Vee, The Curmudgeonly, The Poor Mouth (109).

Update 23/09/07 2334: other people blogging on this include: 1820, Hangbitch, Crooked Timber, ArseNole, Identity Unknown, Liberty Alone, Amused Cynicism, Clairwil, The Lone Voice, Tampon Teabag, Unoriginalname38, Special/Blown It, The Remittance Man, 18 Doughty Street, Laban Tall, Martin Bright, Spy Blog The Exile, poons, Jangliss, Who Knows Where Thoughts Come From?, Imagined Community, A Pint of Unionist Lite, Poldraw, Disillusioned And Bored, Error Gorilla, Indigo Jo, Swiss Metablog, Kate Garnwen Truemors, Asn14, D-Notice, The Judge, Political Penguin, Miserable Old Fart, Jottings, fridgemagnet, Blah Blah Flowers, J. Arthur MacNumpty, Tony Hatfield, Grendel, Charlie Whitaker, Matt Buck, The Waendel Journal, Marginalized Action Dinosaur, SoccerLens, Toblog, John Brissenden East Lower, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Peter Black AM, Boing Boing, BLTP, Gunnerblog, LFB UK, Liberal Revolution, Wombles, Focus on Sodbury…, Follow The Money, Freedom and Whisky, Melting Man, PoliticalHackUK, Simon Says…, Daily EM, From The Barrel of a Gun, The Fourth Place, The Armchair News Blog, Journalist und Optimist, Bristol Indymedia, Dave Weeden, Up North John, Gizmonaut, Spin and Spinners, Marginalia, Arnique, Heather Yaxley, The Whiskey Priest, On The Beat, Paul Canning, Martin Stabe, Mat Bowles, Pigdogfucker, Rachel North, taking the total to one hundred and ninety three.

xD.

Kucinich for President... apparently

2007-09-19T17:14:00.000+01:00

According to VAJoe.com, I have an 83.33% match with Dennis Kucinich. Other matches are Barack Obama (71.67%) and John Edwards (67.5%). Hillary comes in at 65.00%.

The full list of my matches is:

Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (D) - 75.83%
Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) - 71.67%
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) - 69.17%
Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D) - 67.50%
New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) - 65.00%
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden (D) - 62.50%
Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd (D) - 58.33%
Texas Representative Ron Paul (R) - 41.67%
Businessman John Cox (R) - 31.67%
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) - 30.83%
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) - 24.17%
Arizona Senator John McCain (R) - 23.33%
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) - 20.00%

My answers were:

Abortion rights – yes – medium
Death penalty – no – high
No child left behind – no – low
Embryonic stem cell research – yes – low
ANWR drilling – no – low
Kyoto protocol – yes – low
Assault weapons ban – yes – medium
Gun background checks – yes – high
Patriot act – no – high
Guantanamo – no – high
Water boarding of captives – no – high
Citizen path for illegal – yes – medium
Border fence – no – medium
Internet neutrality – yes – high
Iran sanctions – no – medium
Iran military action – no – medium
Support Iraq war – unsure – medium
Increase minimum wage – yes – high
Same sex marriage – yes – high
Universal health care – yes – high
Free trade – yes – medium
School vouchers – no – medium
Privatizing social security – no - medium

xD.

The decline and fall of The Independent

2007-09-18T22:34:00.000+01:00

If you consider yourself of the leftwing persuasion and want a high-brow newspaper, you'll take The Guardian; its opposite number, identifying more firmly with the Tories than Guardianistas do with Labour, would be The Daily Telegraph. At the bottom end of the scale (well, just above The Daily Star) would be The Sun for the right and The Daily Mirror for the Left. The middle-brow for the right can choose between The Daily Mail and The Daily Express, which I know is like choosing between syphilis and cholera.

The middle-brow gap on the left has been filled, it would seem, by the Independent. I hope it does not try to ape the Express or the Mail; there can be good news coverage without being as dry as the FT. As it happens, I agree with Jeremy Paxman about the Indie - "if any paper chooses not to be part of the pack, it’s the Indie". Although the Indie is not running with the pack, it can still be headed over an unfortunate cliff. I rather suspect that Mr Blair's attack on the Indie is because of its rather trenchant attacks on the former PM, particularly as it is a non-Tory newspaper. A point that both Blair and Paxman have made is the need to separate hard news reporting, features and opinion. Unfortunately, the Independent frequently puts Robert Fisk on the front page.

Fisk is a serious journalist and one of the few westerners to have had a media interview with Osama bin Laden (in fact, on three occasions, in 93, 96 and 97, which suggests that he'd cottoned on to the man's importance before the formation of the Bin Laden Issue Station in 96); his writing is engaging, polemical and usually pretty factual. It is, though, his personal account; Fisk is on record as not believing it possible to be objective, and that therefore you should be subjective as a reporter. While it might be very worthy of the feature section and his opinions perfect for the later pages, it should not be at the front of a newspaper.

The perception is made worse amongst bloggers because of the verb 'to fisk'; I don't think it's entered mainstream usage, though.

The Guardian has been doing very well out of an imagined community built around Comment is Free and it has influence beyond the number of its readers, as does the Telegraph; the Sun has sheer weight of numbers and both it and the Mirror have the advantage of speaking to the perceived bases of the Labour and Tory parties. It is no surprise that I consider the Mail and the Express to be execrable, but not just for their jingoistic, occasionally factless, rabble-rousing 'news', but because their journalists are not - in my opinion - as good as those on the Sun or the Mirror; they are stuck in their mindsets and ways with no appreciation for that situation and no desire to leave it¹.

It might be possible for the Independent to have more of a magazine feel about it and still have a purpose as a daily newspaper; however, it seems to be going the way of the Mail and the Express with features such as 'Personality: What makes you the way you are?' which has the ominous line:

What kind of personality are you? Take this test to discover the truth.

The truth about my personality? I thought that was why I had a psychiatrist...

That article featured not in the magazine or review, but in the run-of-paper. My objection - and I'm rather sad about this, because the Independent used to be my newspaper of choice - is that you are not going to get a serious psychological analysis from a daily newspaper that costs seventy pence and that people who look for serious psychological analysis from a seventy pence daily newspaper are not going to give you the weight of the Guardian, particularly when the market is cornered by the Express and the Mail.

xD.

1 - Yes, Melanie Phillips. Having changed once your political position does not mean you will change again. I've heard it said that journos for the Sun are the best in the business and grasp stories more quickly than anyone else. That may be so; however, it seems to me (in my admittedly limited experience) that they grasp the story sufficiently for them to be able to write a story on it - the in-depth knowledge is not there and their news reporting is not factual. Equally, a newspaper is not just the factual reporting. Compare the comment and analysis in a tabloid to that in a broadsheet; compare the letters pages.

PS: An interesting link: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/060817macdonald/

3:10 to Yuma

2007-09-17T16:03:00.000+01:00

I just went to see 3:10 to Yuma, the remake of the 1957 film with Christian Bale and Russell Crowe as the main characters. I greatly enjoyed it and would happily see it again; I'm not sure whether it will become a classic, but it is a very good film.

**Spoiler warning**

The end of the film is perplexing; you can understand why, after the journey they'd had together, Ben Wade (Crowe) might want to wish the best for Dan Evans (Bale), even to the point of allowing himself to be to be transported to Yuma prison - from which he had escaped twice before. It is harder to explain, at first glance, why he would shoot his own gang and then, Dan Evans already being dead, voluntarily go to Yuma.

Earlier in the film, when highlighting Byron McElroy's character flaws, Wade quotes Proverbs 13:85 - "every man's character is good in his own eyes". McElroy, who works for Pinkerton, a sort of proto-security company, justifies his murder of Apaches, including children, as preventing further murders. Wade clearly sees it as little more than genocide of people considered by McElroy to be heathens and perhaps soulless.

It is, then, possible that Wade sees himself as good in his own eyes. The way he manages his gang is brutal - when a younger member of the gang fails to notice a Pinkerton surviving an attack, he shoots him dead without a second thought. His justice, though, is not so very different from the justice of the frontier; rough, ready and deadly. Seeing the hypocrisy in the approved society of the day as represented by McElroy, he sets himself up in his own violent but unhypocritical form of justice. An attractive woman that Wade takes to bed and Evans' younger son both have to move to dry environments because of chest complaints; perhaps that, too, was a motivation for Wade to move to the west. Perhaps another force majeure made him leave and he was unable to repent (and then move to Mexico) as he would have had no means of sustaining himself.

When his aim - keeping Dan Evans alive - fails and he kills his gang, he has effectively committed two crimes; perhaps it is for those that he so calmly surrenders his weapons and himself.

As I mentioned above, 3:10 to Yuma is quite a bloody affair, but necessarily so. It effectively captures the hardship and violence of the frontier. It does not, to my mind, capture the slowness or the boredom of that life. Sergio Leone's Dollars trilogy captures the waiting that is sometimes involved in the Wild West. This is partially done in scenes such as the Union prison camp but more so, in the vein of Lawrence of Arabia, in scenes such as the Mexican stand-off and the long, scenographies that show the expanse of the west.

A particular example is when the elder of Evans' sons sees Wade's gang approaching Yuma; I would have preferred a scene such as in Lawrence of Arabia where Omar Sharif approaches over the dunes.

That having been said, Crowe continues admirably in the tradition of Lee van Cleef - an anti-hero (rather than antihero) - that delights in killing while being both erudite and polite.

The relationships carried on in the film are what elevates this above an interesting, western shoot 'em up. The main one is, of course, between Wade and Evans and its intensity adds to the believability of the final scenes. You are left feeling that, while Wade and Evans will never be friends, they are both victims of circumstance. Who knows, they might even have played football on Christmas Day. Ultimately, the film revolves around an unwilling hero and an antihero, dual but imperfect protagonists that are deeply compromised through the situation in which they find themselves. The absence of a Hollywood hero (and, fortunately, a Hollywood ending) meant I left the film having enjoyed myself tremendously rather than angry at a film having been thrown away for sentiment's sake at the last moment.

**End spoiler warning**

Final thing: I don't like tag lines. Sometimes, it would be better not to have them. 'Time waits for one man' has nothing to do with the film. It's silly. It looks out of place on the poster. There's no need for it. Stop it.

xD.

Thames Festival

2007-09-16T23:42:00.000+01:00

I've just come home from the Thames Festival with Alice, which was a lot of fun, with a carnival, floats, performers, food, stalls, fireworks and an altogether lovely atmosphere. Of that, more later, along with photos, but in the meantime here is one with which I am pleased.

and one in a similar vein from Alice:

xD.

Child labour? It's great

2007-09-07T08:06:00.000+01:00

The Daily Mail Lite, aka Metro, writes on page eight to say that Dickens had it all wrong and that, in fact, child labourers in Victorian England were happy little scamps. Admittedly, they were, according to a report of the time, in "evident poverty, want of clothing and, in many cases, sufficient food" and were paid the princely sum of "four shillings a week - equivalent to about £8.82 today".

Three points. The Metro, unsurprisingly, is rubbish journalism; they do not even mention the possibility that there were problems with the surveys carried out in the 1840s that, despite a lack of sufficient food in many cases found children working in factories to be happy. Perhaps they were even made to say that to keep their jobs. Yes, the article says they were interviewed away from their bosses, but an overworked, undernourished child is unlikely to be in a position to resist.

Child labour is a real problem. "Light-hearted" articles like this serve to trivialise the problem and give people glasses rose-tinted enough to buy the products that keep the trade going.

The Metro is given away to commuters in London; it is not, though, anything other than a rag with gossip and celebrity news. It has no competition in the free, morning market and so has no impetus to do anything that provide news as cheaply as possible.

I think the article may be causing some embarrasment to Metro; it doesn't appear on their website.

xD.

We can't turn them away

2007-09-06T12:09:00.001+01:00

I was delighted to receive a response from my MP, Mark Field, that was supportive of the Iraqi interpreters.

The body reads:

Thank you so much for your letter of [date] regarding the asylum applications of Iraqi interpreters who have worked for the British Army.I appreciate and understand your worry about the future of the interpreters, particularly as we have not yet received a firm commitment from the government on the issue. You may be interested to know that I have already been contacted about this matter by a number of other constituents, including a Major in the Army who was concerned about the future of his own interpreter.

I wrote to the Home Secretary some weeks ago to request information on the stance the government will be taking on the interpreters' applications and to ask for my concern to be registered. Unfortunately I have not yet received a reply from her, but I anticipate her responding within the thirty day time bracket we have to allow for ministerial correspondence.

There will be a cross-party meeting, organised by the online campaign for Asylum rights for Iraqi employees. It will take place in Parliament in Committee Room 14 (St Stephen’s Entrance) from 7-9pm on Tuesday 9th October. Please arrive early to avoid hideous disappointment, etc.

In the meantime, you can find background information here courtesy of Dan Hardie, replies from MPs here from Chicken Yoghurt and a list of supporting bloggers on Bloggerheads.

xD.

Back soon...

2007-09-04T10:13:00.000+01:00

Unfortunately, pressure of work means I haven't had any time to post.

I hope to post this weekend; if not, I'll be back the following weekend.

xD.

If business meetings were conducted like blogs...

2007-08-28T15:25:00.000+01:00

This is hilarious - what would a business meeting be like if it were conducted like a blog?

It does show the problems with internet discussions. Via Blogpower.

xD.

The myth of victims' rights

2007-08-25T19:53:00.000+01:00

Many blog inches have gone to discussing the case of Learco Chindamo, the murderer of Philip Lawrence. The opposition to Chindamo's being able to stay in the UK could be charitably described as shrill. Kris Stoke Newington's entire post reads

Hang on. This killer does not have a British passport and because of his murder conviction can never get one, yet somehow it is his “human right” to remain in the UK at the end of his sentence?!

It is all a little bit like The Daily Mail. Fortunately, the Ministry of Truth has pointed out some of the Mail's, ahem, oversights. Iain Dale asks a simple question in response to the Human Rights Act being cited in allowing Chindamo to remain in the UK - "What about THEIR human rights?" - what about the human rights of the family of the victim, Philip Lawrence.

There is an immediate and very strong answer from none other than Tim Worstall:

[H]e [Chindamo] won an argument under the Human Rights Act that he was entitled to respect for a family life and that removal in his case would be disproportionate. But this was secondary to his case under EU law. Under articles 27 and 28 of the EU Citizens Directive 2004, which took effect last year, an EU citizen can be expelled only on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.

So all the criticism of the Human Rights Act in this case is misplaced.

Nevertheless, people are attacking the Act more and more often and the ghastly spectre of victims' rights has started to rear its head. There are some things that should be called victims' rights; amongst these are effective investigation by the police, speedy resolution of the case, support from the counselling part of the police, financial compensation and keeping the media at arms' length; not all of these apply in every case, and there may be more.

Victims do not, IMHO, have rights against the person who committed a crime and their rights to appropriate treatment and sensitivity certainly do not extend to the penal process. This is for three reasons.

Rights are not zero-sum; that is to say, there is no logical necessity for the duty of care that state owes a victim of crime resulting in that person having rights against the criminal. Put another way, we do not demand 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' or 'a lifetime of vengeance for a life cut short'.

Secondly, victims are not special. In the case of Chindamo, I fail to see, if he is such an unpleasant character (which I dispute based on the evidence available) why I should be pleased that the problem is removed to Italy. I do not see why, judicially, a second crime on a person should be feared any more than a first crime on second else.

Thirdly, they lead to unacceptable variations in the law. If someone were to steal a Snoopy stuffed toy, you might say that it was a minor offence. If someone were to steal my Snoopy stuffed toy - my companion since birth - I would be devastated and probably be demanding blood. If I, or I think any person other than a dessicated calculating machine, were the victim of crime, they would immediately become biased to such a point that they could not make a neutral decision; they are partial.

xD.

Microsoft admit Office is too expensive

2007-08-21T15:21:00.000+01:00

Microsoft are offering a version of Office to South African consumers that can be rented on a monthly basis as the US$700 price tag is beyond the reach. No matter what the monthly rent (US$30), it will be more than the price tag of OpenOffice.org - zero.

xD.

Forgotten Heroes

2007-08-20T22:08:00.000+01:00

I'm going to start a weekly post on people I consider to be forgotten heroes; that is to say, people who I think should be remembered more than they are for their efforts. I often find myself fascinated by the motivations of the heroic failures, the honestly wrong and and the tireless campaigners for unpopular causes, so many of those may feature in these posts.

Some of the people I'm thinking of writing on are the author of Lazarillo de Tormes, Simón Bolívar, Sydney Silverman and Anton Praetorius. If anyone would like me to include someone else, do drop me an email.

xD.

The perils of modern living, #273

2007-08-19T11:28:00.000+01:00

If a former high school teacher adds you on Facebook, can you say you went to school with them? It's technically accurate but does add a few years to me that I'd rather not have added.

xD.

Atom RSS

2007-08-16T14:35:00.001+01:00

I've set up Atom, a site feed, on my blog. The URL for the feed is http://unoriginalname38.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

xD.

Cakes and Ale

2007-08-16T11:15:00.000+01:00

Graf von Straf Hinderberg has an interesting, if somewhat morose, post on modernity and the fairy gold of materialism. Showing that the King James Bible has a beautiful turn of phrase, von Straf links to Ephesians 6:12:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

The quote attributes our lethargy to malign influences from our leaders; I'm afraid that my answer to the phenomenon is rather different.

After a time, you may find that having a thing is not so pleasant as wanting it. It is not logical, but it is often true.

As spoken by Spock in Amok Time.

xD.

Petitions and Habeas Corpus

2007-08-15T00:37:00.000+01:00

I have to disagree with Iain Dale that petitions on the Number Ten website are pointless. The comparison I would make is with habeas corpus, and more particularly habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. As I understand it, habeas corpus provides for someone being detained to be brought before a judge (in a court of law) for determination as to whether their detention is legitimate. Its logic of operation is that by bringing a case in front of a judge, justice will be done; the guarantor of the judge's honesty (and I cast no aspersions on the integrity of the judiciary) is that everything is conducted in public.

The same logic applies to public petitions of Parliament 'for the redress of grievances'. Many petitions attract little note; others attract millions of signatories. The point is to place on record an opinion that something is amiss. I feel that a Government should take note of petitions; if it does not, it can miss a substantial strand of opinion that may lead, in extremis, to its own downfall. Whether or not the Prime Minister looks at petitions on a regular basis is somewhat irrelevant. I am quite sure that the Number Ten staff do - viz Benn Wegg-Prosser's comment on Iain's post - and while an exhortation for the PM to "stand on his head and juggle ice cream" may be described as light-hearted and not needing a response, a certain petition dealing with road pricing, which finished with close on two million signatures, attracted a reply from the PM and continued debate in the press.

It's not just the 'big issues' that attract attention. Quite a lot of photographers were labouring under the misapprehension that restrictions on photography in public places were going to be brought in as a response (or so I read) to concerns about paedophiles and paparazzi. In order to put the matter to bed, every Government department was asked if they were considering any such proposals. They were not, as it happened. Perhaps not the most significant of victories unless you happen to be a photographer.

I will forgo the usual stuff about 'public participation' and 'having your voice heard'; for the process to work, it is dependent on attention being paid to public proceedings. Here, top political bloggers, like Iain, owe a duty as members of the fourth estate to pay attention to petitions and to the answers that the Government of the day provide. Criticise either by all means, but don't decry the process. Sunlight remains the best disinfectant.

xD.

Karl Rove's last ride

2007-08-14T11:32:00.000+01:00

Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff to President George W Bush, said in his resignation interview with the Wall Street Journal that

"he believed Mr Bush would leave behind two lasting pillars of future foreign policy - that harbouring a terrorist makes a nation as guilty as the terrorist, and the act of pre-emption.
While he predicted a Democratic nomination for Hillary Clinton, he did so with a swipe, saying of the Democrats: "They are likely to nominate a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate."

which are some interesting takes on the past few years.

Firstly, harbouring a terrorist makes a nation as guilty as the terrorist. What exactly does 'harbouring' mean? If it means actively supporting or sheltering terrorists, you can see the logic. If, however, it means 'failing to take all possible action' - which seems to be the implication - it changes things somewhat.

Should we insist that Pakistan march through the north of its territory, where some governmental actors are doubtlessly 'sheltering' people who are, at least, associated with terrorism? How does it impact on Saudi Arabia? Should the UK have marched through Northern Ireland, going to door to door to drag out everyone with a possible connection to terrorism, from Loyalist and Republican sides, including the UK military personnel who were involved

The answer, according to Mr Rove, is pre-emption. That is a dangerous proposition indeed. An argument can be made that Afghanistan was not pre-emption, as the Afghan government of the day had not merely tolerated the existence of the Taleban but aided and abetted their actions. It is rather more difficult in the cases of Iraq and Lebanon. In the former case, the pre-emption meant acting without evidence. In the latter case, it meant overriding the concerns of a sovereign state. Either way, the precedent is worrying as it opens an avenue for other countries to take pre-emptive military action, over the heads of a country that is dealing with a terrorist problem just because America (or any other country) doesn't like the way it's being dealt with.

As to Hilary, she is far from a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination. I wonder exactly what the fatal flaw is and whether it can be any worse than a President who, with no real ideas of his own, assumes the ideas of those close to him as his own.

xD.

Update 2130:
Other people who have commented on this topic include Tiberius Gracchus, Vino and Bloggerheads .

Join Dave C for a day at the races

2007-08-13T13:37:00.000+01:00

'Dave' Cameron is at pains to distance himself from his Eton, Bullingdon Club and generally upper-class past. Fair enough - politicians shouldn't be burdened by their past lives. Unfortunately, West Midlands Conservatives have found a wonderfully inclusive way of raising funds. They're going to the races for a day.

Apparently,

[t]he Party Leader, David Cameron MP will be attending along with other members of the Shadow Cabinet as well as senior MPs and MEPs from around the country

at Uttoxeter Racecourse. That racecourse does have certain dress requirements:

Please note our dress guidelines; for all enclosures we recommend smart casual clothing.

And in the Premier Enclosure (for which the West Mids Tories have "negotiated a significant discount on Premier badges purchased in advance by Party members, or supporters", such awful clothes as "football or rugby shirts, ripped jeans or shorts will not be permitted".

I seem to remember Michael White mentioning that one G. Fawkes, Esq, (aka Paul Staines) has a tendency to wear rugby shirts when all about him are in suit and tie. Perhaps that'll stop Fawkes doing his Tory Totty routine.

Just so that no-one can accuse me of hypocrisy, I am also a Dave C and went to a public school.

xD.

Computer nightmares

2007-08-08T17:26:00.000+01:00

Someone forwarded me a list of the twenty-five worst tech products of all time from the US magazine, PC World. AOL, RealPlayer and Windows ME are all there. They publish various other (quite amusing) lists. OK, it's pretty geeky, but they raised a smile.

Top Ten...

...Worst Web Sites¹
...Most Annoying Windows Features
...Worst Viruses
...Most Annoying Tech Products
...Worst PCs of All Time

and, of course, the Top Twenty-Five Worst Tech Products of All Time.

Unfortunately, I owned (before a geeky awakening) a Packard Bell PC or two. Packard Bell are damned as a whole in the number one slot for Worst PCs. In fairness, I never had any problem with the Windows 95 version I had. The WinME version was a different story...

If anyone, though, knows where you can buy old Packard Bell cases, let me know. They had some interesting designs to them and I wouldn't mind using one for an up-to-date computer.

xD.

1 - amusingly, as MicroSoft has two entries, this one also appears on the MSN website

Chickenhawks revisited

2007-08-08T17:06:00.000+01:00

I talked here about my dislike for the word 'chickenhawk' following on from posts from Matthew Sinclair and Tiberius Gracchus. It is an ad hominem attack and fails to engage with the arguments, cheapening debate on all sides.

Beyond that, it opens up people opposed to (a given) military intervention to an obvious counter-charge. If 'we' say that 'they' can't support a war because they don't know what they're talking about or are being hypocritical, 'we' open ourselves to a similar argument. If the charge is that 'they' always support war to appear macho, 'we' are always cowardly and we cannot criticise the mode of argument as 'we' have just used it ourselves. If 'we' want to say that 'they' are all for military adventuring because 'they' have no idea, not having been in the armed forces, of what combat is like or (more importantly) what it can achieve, the opposite can be said about 'us' - that 'we' don't know what threats 'we' are actually facing or what can be done about them on the ground and so shouldn't comment.

Some of these issues are canards. A private might have a very good idea indeed of what the business end of an enemy's rifle looks like but have no conception of the strategic or political implications of returning fire. You can perfectly well comment on military matters without having been a member of the armed forces, but engaging in the chickenhawk debate means you can't have a serious discussion about what's going on.

xD.

Akehurst on Johnson on Johnson

2007-08-07T21:47:00.000+01:00

Luke Akehurst has a great post with a selection of, ahem, interesting quotes from Boris Johnson. Do take a read. If Boris can make Luke like Ken, the Hon. Member for Henley must be dire indeed.

xD.

What happened to the Smashing Pumpkins?

2007-08-06T22:41:00.000+01:00

The Smashing Pumpkins have a special place in my heart - the first CD I ever bought was Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness. Just goes to show that I was both cool and pretentious at a tender age. I'm listening to the new album, Zeitgeist, and it's OK, but not up to Mellon Collie or Siamese Dream. The first track, Doomsday Clock, is fine in its own way but feels over-produced. Some tracks come over as, well, pretentious - Bleeding the Orchid, for instance - and those tracks that sound more like the Pumpkins I'm used to - Tarantula - suffer from the same over-polishing, losing the grittiness in Billy Corgan's voice that used to be so distinctive.

Some of the later songs are, frankly, bizarre and I cannot get my head around them. Perhaps the tone of the album is set by the cover and the title, Zeitgeist. The 'spirit of the age' is the Statue of Liberty standing with water rising about her. I don't think Corgan sings well about politics. Three songs, United States, For God and Country and Pomp and Circumstances, taken together give the impression that Corgan wants to be positive about the USA but can't because of recent events.

United States runs

Revolution
Revolution blues
What will they do to me
[...]
Freedom shines the light ahead
I'll lead the last charge to bed
I said my last rights
I don't have to run scared no more

which sounds very different from "despite all my rage/I am still just a rat in a cage" of the days of yore. Corgan changes further in For God and Country:

You can't deny God and country
We're fighting for our lives
You can't deny God and country
Our souls are so aligned
In this time of God and country
We'll take you on our side
It's all right
My soul is so alive
With God and night
With God and country
My soul is so alive

Which could be ironic save for the last line - "my soul is so alive" - which suggests to me that the security of a position, regardless of the position, and the approval of a peer group is comforting in a difficult time.

You then have "Pomp and Circumstances", which runs:

What was once new now gone
What was once praised now wrong
As they go, we can say we know
But what do we know
But warm sunshine and graves
Don't we see
What's bitter to taste

which, coupled with United States seems to be hoping that there well be some sort of revolution, perhaps to kick Corgan et al. out of their collective reverie. I hope that the personification of that revolution is not Hillary Clinton or another Democrat as that would suggest a dreadful naivete.

Aside from the fact I disagree with what I think is meant, it isn't said well. Nevertheless, I enjoyed listening to the album. It is well made and thoughtful. It just didn't resonate with me in the way that Mellon Collie or Siamese Dream did.

OK, I admit it. I didn't buy Mellon Collie. I gave the money to my Mum to buy it for me.

xD.

MS Office 2007

2007-08-05T23:07:00.000+01:00

My work computer came with MS Office 2007 pre-installed. I have decided to go back to using OpenOffice.org for two reasons - the ribbon and the 'docx' OOXML file implementation. That and the fact that it reeks of EEE.

Firstly, the ribbon. Nice idea, but it doesn't work. It's not intuitive and adds an extra click to any function that isn't displayed on the 'home' tab. Its attempt to get people to use styles is positive, but the way it's been implemented is, frankly, rubbish. It took me about twenty minutes to work out how to make my styles the default settings and it wouldn't let me delete the ones that were getting in the way.

There is no option (that I could find) to go back to a drop-down menu. I think I'm pretty handy with a computer and pretty good at adjusting to new systems (I managed going from MS Windows XP to Ubuntu without any problems) and it's taking me more time than I'd want (at work, when deadlines are sometimes tight) to adjust. If it's bothering me, I should think it'd bother less geeky computer users even more. As The Register says:

Training is one reason, with users apparently requiring "more intense" coaching than expected. Forrester reportedly said most business users will need up to three hours formal training, which will be followed by a drop in efficiency for up to four weeks as they adjust to their new environment.

Secondly, file saving. The default format to save a Word document in is now .docx. This is meant to be an implementation of an open standard. It is, however, Microsoft's version of an open standard - it can't be easily opened by older versions of Word and there is already an open standard, OpenDocument.

Microsoft's OOXML has a few problems. Well, more than a few. There is a comprehensive list here. Do take a read - they're all very good reasons why OOXML should not be adopted as a global standard, particularly when OpenDocument is already being used 'in the field.

Lastly, the Office Genuine Advantage kill-switch and the shrink-wrap license mean that Microsoft are up to their old tricks. ZDNet sums it up well:

We spent 40 minutes just skimming the 10,379-word End User License Agreement and stopped before we could understand it all. Here are some of the highlights: You're allowed to install Office 2007 software on two computers; you must agree to download updates whenever Microsoft decides you need them.

I'm fairly negatively disposed towards Microsoft anyway, but the changes from Office 2003 to 2007 would not convince me to upgrade, particularly when the free OpenOffice.org comes with a database programme as standard and the OEM MS Office does not.

xD.

Well done, Vodafone

2007-08-02T22:42:00.000+01:00

Vodafone have pulled their adverts from Facebook after their skyscrapers appeared on the BNP group profile. I don't know which one, as there are three BNP groups on Facebook. The full story is on Media Guardian.

xD.

The Daily Telegraph on Charlie Gillett

2007-08-02T16:20:00.000+01:00

I'd like to recommend this article in today's Daily Telegraph on Charlie Gillett by Peter Culshaw. Mr Culshaw sings the praises of Charlie Gillett, the hugely influential host of World of Music on the BBC World Service and, until his illness last year, of the Sound of the World on BBC Radio Four. I started listening to World of Music when I bought a digital radio and then found Sound of the Worldand it is, I think, the best music programme on any radio station. It is always varied and always entertaining and has introduced me to artists that are prominent on the 'world music' scene that I had never heard of, not least Tinariwen and Ali Farka Toure. When I did a radio show, Ozymandias is Back, at the LSE Students' Union's radio station, PuLSE, I frequently pinched songs that Gillett had played a couple of nights before.

Culshaw does point out that the UK music industry is Anglophonic in a way that the Spanish is not Hispanophonic or the French Francophonic:

The conservative nature of British radio disappoints him. "If you think of how other aspects of life have changed - the number of foreign players in the Premiership, the diverse range of global restaurants in the high streets - radio here is pretty xenophobic." He is puzzled that multi-million selling artists such as Spain's Manu Chao or Cesaria Evora from Cape Verde are so rarely played on Radio 1 or 2.

In other countries I've been to, there is at least music sung in English as well as the native language or languages and frequently other tongues as well.

You can listen to Charlie Gillett on the World Service online.

xD.

Chickenhawks

2007-08-01T23:06:00.000+01:00

Responding to a video entry on the Huffington Post by one Max Blumenthal, Tiberius Gracchus and Matt Sinclair have been discussing the word 'chickenhawk'. Unfortunately, they are both barking up unfortunately chosen arboreal plants.

Tiberius makes a mistake which, to be frank, is unworthy of him. The video he bases his opinions on is biased (not necessarily bad), one-sided and takes a half-dozen interviews, presumably selected to make the interviewees look foolish, and presents them without any justification or evidence as representative of all Republicans.

Tiberius says:

The point though is that within Republican students and Republican commentators is a kind of resurgent masculinity- that going to war proves that you are manly and stand up for your principles- that not supporting a war in another country, like Iraq, is proving you hold 'girly' opinions or that you are a weedy academic. That war is good for its own sake- that all problems can be solved through the use of military force. It isn't in my view incumbent on Republicans to go to war to prove their credentials to advocate war- but I think they lay themselves open to the chicken hawk accusation by using these militaristic arguments- by demeaning those that oppose their justifications as traitors, by saying that support for war is a token of courage.

If Tiberius' point is that Fox News is a cheerleader for neoconservativism, I think he could have made it rather more elegantly. If he is saying that there is a resurgence of virtù, I fear he is mistaken. There has always been a vulgar jingoism in some parts of any western polity that has had populist appeal. Any war calls on these sentiments, and it is as much the failure of the 'liberal' side of the media to make serious argument against the position taken by some 'conservatives' or the strength of Fox News that leads to its apparent preponderance at the moment.

The video in question is no better than the people it seeks to attack, being very much in the Michael Moore school of polemic film-making. Even down to the appeal to the flag with serious voice over at the beginning, it is not calculated to make an argument so much as to make an ad hominem attack; a logical fallacy. If some well-known members of the polity make the argument that it is 'girly' not to support the war, it behoves others to say that the line of reasoning is flawed; that past experience has shown that wars like this end in failure and don't achieve what is intended; that there are better ways of protecting the 'homeland'.

Going through the video, there are lots of points made by the attendees at the Republican College Convention that could be torn apart pretty easily. However, Blumenthal covers a speech about abortion¹ and the chairperson of the convention talking about how many important people he's met. If this were an American policy-style debate, there would be howls of 'topicality'.

Matt replies by missing the obvious rebuttal (which, in fairness, is made in the comments section); that there is no longer a draft. There is no obligation to go to war, and so no avoidance of it. Equally, there are plenty of ways of serving a war effort without fighting on the front lines, the notable example being the Bevin Boys -
about one in ten conscripts were sent down the mines and did not come back up until 1948.

Quite why Matt goes on to talk about pacifism is beyond me. Talking about foreign policy and taking a moral risk on war is fine, but he misunderstands pacifism. There is no moral risk of war from a pacifist point of view; it is an immoral certainty. Wars are fought, from a non-pacifist point of view, to stop further wars. it is a common pacifist theme that wars cause wars and the way to prevent future wars is not to fight this one.

Answering in turn, Tiberius says:

Matt is right there is a moral cowardice in pacifism as well- but the most moral cowardice demonstrated recently has been from the advocates of war who imagine that war is costless and beneficent- it isn't and we should remember and honour the soldiers, and remember that when we go to war, for myself and Matt we are advocating that people take the supreme risk without ourselves being willing to take that risk. It is moral cowardice to face up then to the deaths and distress consequent upon our policy- that is what the word Chicken Hawk means to me.

While I am not a pacifist, to say that there is cowardice in pacifism seems to be to be gross ignorance of the facts. Certainly, some people will have claimed to be pacifists out of fear, but a great number have put up with ostracisation, poverty and imprisonment, often in worse conditions than the troops on the front line that they sought to avoid joining, for their convictions. There are plenty of examples on the Peace Pledge Union website.

Tiberius ends by saying "that is what the word Chicken Hawk [sic] means to me". I wrote here about how far-right or fascist are not useful terms as they are so emotionally loaded and caught up with distracting intellectual baggage that they cannot be used as descriptors. The same applies to the term 'chickenhawk'. I'd much rather that people addressed the arguments and not the argumentor.

Last, but not least, the music played in the background of the video clip is 'Fortunate Son' by Creedence Clearwater Revival.

xD.

1 - which has a frankly bizarre argument - if 40,000,000 abortions had been carried out over the last fifty years, we wouldn't need all those illegal immigrants.

SSAFA Petition

2007-07-30T11:06:00.000+01:00

The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, SSAFA,

wishes to buy a residential property in Ashtead, Surrey in order to provide ‘home from home’ accommodation for the immediate family members (spouses, parents and children) of servicemen and women receiving treatment for serious injuries sustained during military operations.
We wish to provide this facility in direct support of the Defence Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court (run by the MOD). The team at Headley Court provides outstanding rehabilitation treatment but, regrettably, current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have resulted in an increase to the numbers of severely injured soldiers needing help. It is vital that both they and their families are fully supported during this difficult time.

Our intention is to use a six bedroom family house. We will not extend it in any way but will undertake minor alterations to facilitate disabled access. An application has been made to Mole Valley Council because of the change of use. We need to buy a property for the purpose rather than undertake a new build because there is an immediate need for this facility. A new build is likely to take two or three years to complete.

SSAFA Forces Help has more than 50 years of professional experience managing and running homes that support the families of our Armed Forces and our veterans, young and old. We hope that this application will be successful in order that we can support the families of badly injured young servicemen and women.

[from the SSAFA website]

The objections that have been raised by the local residents beggar belief. They can be found, with responses, here.

Please visit the SSAFA site, the 36 Grays Lane site and sign the petition at the Number Ten website.

xD.

Building on flood plains

2007-07-30T08:32:00.000+01:00

Writing in Friday's Guardian, Jonathan Glancey makes one good point but in a bad way. His argument - which I made on this blog on the 22nd - is that, should we feel the need to build on flood plains, we should build houses to be floodproof. I suggested half-sunk basements and high plug sockets on the ground floor while Mr Glancey prefers stilts; I don't know which has more architectural merit.

It is perfectly possible to build in a practical manner on a flood plain. It is also necessary to avoid higher and higher housing costs.

Unfortunately, he uses that argument to question the principle of building on flood plains and to attack town and country planning. He attacks 'modern' towns for being desiged with the car in mind.

I think that's a little unfair, as it is only comparatively recently that people have appreciated the social and environmental benefits of mixed developments and promoting the use of public transport. Milton Keynes was built well before this appreciation, as were all the post-war new towns; Mr Glancey waxes lyrical about how "all traditional settlements used to be eco-towns".

This confuses good urban design for social purposes with good urban design for environmental purposes. While you'd hope that both would be part of the design brief, the one does not imply the other.

Whether Mr Glancey likes it or not, this building is going to happen. While attacking the errors of the past, he neglects to promote any of the other lessons we have learned. Municipal combined heat and power, for instance can reduce carbon emissions and is easier to install by design than to retro-fit.

Mr Glancey would also do well to accept a reality; people work in London and commute from the south east. While both he and I would like to promote geographic communities by providing commercial (and perhaps even light industrial) space in these developments, significant numbers will commute to London; if not immediately, over time as people from existing commuter belts move to these areas. It would be far better to provide good rail links from the beginning rather than burying his head in the sand, try to insist on local businesses and end up putting more cars on the road.

xD.

BBC iPlayer

2007-07-26T20:44:00.000+01:00

The BBC is proposing to launch its on demand TV system, iPlayer, but it will only be available to people using a Microsoft operating system. Firstly, this expresses a n unjustifiable commercial bias. Secondly, it fails in the BBC's obligation to provide universal services by excluding Mac and Linux users. Thirdly, it supports Microsoft's digital restrictions management which, regardless of your opinions on DRM, is implemented in a memory-eating, roundabout manner.

Please sign the petition at Number Ten that calls for iPlayer to be available to all operating systems.

xD.

Ethical shopping and conspicuous compassion

2007-07-24T22:26:00.000+01:00

I've been reading Thorstein Veblen's book, The Theory of the Leisure Class (available for free online via Project Gutenberg), lately. George Monbiot, writing in today's Guardian, makes an excellent point - much in line with Veblen's theory of conspicuous consumption. The basic argument, as I understand it, is that there is not a huge amount of understanding of the effect that h. sapiens sapiens is having on the environment but there is an appreciation that it is 'important' and even 'fashionable'. As the grossest excesses of capitalism of the Edwardian era are behind us (or were - they seem to be coming back) from the perspective of Mr & Mrs John Q. Guardian-Reader we have to show how worthwhile we are by showing how much we care. Conspicuous consumption becomes conspicuous compassion, as shown by Live 8, Live Earth, the eco/ego bag (top left) and possibly even the outpourings around the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

I think Monbiot has a point (although I think 'conspicuous compassion' is a bon mot), particularly as it has some explanatory value. If, as he suggests, city bonuses are leading to

plenty of farm labourers and tenants who are desperate to start a farm of their own but have been excluded by what they call "horsiculture": small parcels of agricultural land that are being bought up for pony paddocks and hobby farms. In places such as Surrey and the New Forest, farmland is now fetching up to £30,000 an acre as City bonuses are used to buy organic lifestyles. When the new owners dress up as milkmaids and then tell the excluded how to make butter, they run the risk of turning environmentalism into the whim of the elite.

we can only assume that the organic hobby-farms are there only to impress their kith, kin and ilk with their conspicuous compassion and that said hobby-farmers don't give a hoot for the effects on the local economy or the lack of realism their purchases imply. Moreover, for people in that position, it is not enough to adopt a low-carbon lifestyle; really, they should be going for a negative-carbon or below-sustainable carbon lifestyle to account for their excess emissions prior to 'going green'.

It also explains why (and I can't find the statistics) lots of people, predominantly at the bottom end of the spectrum, aren't particularly concerned about being green - it doesn't impress anyone they care about impressing. It's not a criticism so much as re-stating an age-old problem: how do you make people avoid consequences that are delayed and diffuse?

Answers on a postcard.

xD.

Bat for Lashes

2007-07-24T10:15:00.000+01:00

I'm listening to 'Fur and Gold', the debut album by Bat for Lashes, aka Natasha Khan. It is definitely worth a listen. Her voice has a similar, ethereal quality to Kate Bush and her music is, IMHO, reminscent of Bjork and, at times, Sigur Ros. All in all, I'm rather impressed.

xD.

Congratulations, Phil

2007-07-23T22:33:00.000+01:00

Congratulations to my brother, Phil, on graduation with a first in physiotherapy from Cardiff University (with the highest mark in the final exam).

Here's Phil looking intellectual:

xD.

Flood-proof housing

2007-07-22T22:52:00.000+01:00

As the floods of the past few weeks show, the UK is not particularly well-prepared for inundations and has to build more homes on flood plains. While a lot of the houses to be built to the east of London are (I think) protected by the Thames Barrier, a lot aren't. Here is my brilliant solution (with thanks to Trevor Baylis).

Build the houses with a half-sunken basement. Have steps and a ramp to access the ground floor (which would be a few feet up from the ground). Put tiles on the first floor instead of carpets (less flood damage). Put electric sockets half way up the wall (you won't have to bend down and the water has a lot further to rise before it damages the electrics).

xD.

Hug a Tory day

2007-07-22T22:31:00.000+01:00

Courtesy of Tygerland:

Following the bloody battering the Tories received in last night’s by-election (police have requested dental records to identify the mauled bodies), Tim, being the concerned citizen that he is, has lovingly launched “Hug a Tory Day”.

The rules are simple… HUG A TORY DAY: 20 July 2007

INSTRUCTIONS:

- Find a Tory weblog
- Leave a *hug* under ‘comments’
- Leave
- Spread the love by repeating this message on your weblog… and include a link to your hug

I've hugged Matt Sinclair of Sinclair's Musings.

xD.

A couple of interesting posts

2007-07-22T22:30:00.000+01:00

I'd like to draw everyone's attention to an interesting guest post by Nick Spurrell on Sinclair's Musings about the failure of the Tories at the recent by-elections and an equally interesting post on Turkey by Vino.

A criticism frequently levelled against blogging is that it adds nothing new that is also of value. I think both posts do add those things - frankness from Nick Spurrell and a different perspective from Vino.

xD.

Ruth Turner's good name

2007-07-22T18:47:00.000+01:00

As I mentioned on Luke Akehurst's blog, I feel rather sorry for Ruth Turner, formerly director of government relations at Number Ten under Tony Blair. She has committed no crime and there is insufficient evidence against her (or, for that matter, anyone else). Nevertheless, the press felt the need to drag her name through the mud. I'm sure that they were careful to stay within the letter of the law but, sadly, 'mud sticks'.

I've not met Ruth Turner myself, but I know a few people who have and they were, frankly, incredulous at the idea she could have done anything wrong. Perhaps worth looking at her CV. She helped set up The Big Issue in the North. She set up a social research company, Vision Twenty One, based on citizen's juries. She has a lot to offer UK plc, whether in government, commerce or the third sector but has had her good name besmirched by the papers.

There needs to be stronger protection, both in this case and a multitude of others that I'm sure we can all think of, for people accused of crimes. The recent Madeleine McCann coverage brought to my attention a feature of Portuguese law whereby a person questioned by the police can ask to be officially named as a suspect, which brings the equivalent (I believe) of sub judice protections. The disadvantage is that you are an official suspect (but still innocent). A similar provision here so that people can garner some protection for themselves against the more feral instincts of the media would be welcome.

xD.

Free speech and the Spanish Crown Prince

2007-07-21T15:26:00.000+01:00

The Spanish police have been ordered to remove from sale all copies of the satirical newspaper El Jueves as it carries a cartoon (appears right) depicting Crown Prince Philip and his wife having sex.

The cartoon refers to the proposed policy of paying €2,500 for each newborn child in an effort to increase Spain's declining birth rate and to the Crown Prince's lack of a working history; the speech bubbles say "You do realise that if you fall pregnant, this will be the closest thing to work I've done in my life?".

Under Spanish law, insulting the royal family carries a two-year prison sentence and the magazine have been ordered to identify the cartoonist. I hope that a court case does come about and that it reaches a European court as I would dearly like to see all restrictions on free speech on the basis of nobility or political position summarily struck out. It is possible to have a debate about the merits of a monarchy or a republic (for the record, I would prefer a republic, both here and in Spain, to a monarchy) but it is not possible to say that they should be immune from criticism.

El Jueves is, in a way, doing what the satire boom and Spitting Image did for the UK: allowing criticism of people in positions of power and influence who feel that they should be handled with kid gloves. El Jueves has attacked just about every politician, ETA, the royal family and, as they put it, anyone that moves. No court has found them guilty of any crime, and yet the police have taken it upon themselves to remove the publication from circulation. If a crime had been committed, better to have imposed a fine after a judicial process than set a precedent for such an alarming curtailment of one of the most important civil rights.

I'd add that it is impossible to call the Spanish monarchy apolitical (if you can call any head of state apolitical) because of Juan Carlos (positive) actions after the death of Franco and in the attempted coup of 23rd and 24th February, 1981.

xD.

The Boris Johnson Coronation

2007-07-19T20:05:00.000+01:00

Oh dear, oh dear. The Tories are trying to choose their candidate for Mayor of London, but their much-vaunted primary has ended up looking like a rubber-stamp for Boris Johnson.

The news item on the Conservative website can hardly be called unbiased: it has a picture of Boris (reproduced right) and reads

[...] Other contenders who have publicly launched their campaigns include Winston Mckenzie, Simon Fawthrop, Victoria Borwick, Warwick Lightfoot, Andrew Boff, Lurline Champagnie, and Lee Rotherham

Firstly, there are no other credible candidates. Despite extending the deadline for nominations, no-one else of any substance can be found. They include Winston McKenzie (formerly of Veritas), Simon Fawthrop (who campaigned against the existence of a London Mayor in the first place), Victoria Borwick (who rattles off answers to easy questions but doesn't take on the hard ones), Warwick Lightfoot (who presumably wishes the last three years of NHS spending increases hadn't happened), Andrew Boff (who has been failing to be Tory Mayoral candidate for eight years), Lurline Champagnie (who is supporting Hillary for president of the US on her Lurline for London website and simultaneously endorsing trade unionism) and Lee Rotherham (of the pottily eurosceptic Bruges Group).

I haven't heard of any of them, and they're just the ones that the Tories are prepared to name. Of course, the Tory faithful won't be able to choose, both because anyone who is registered as a voter in London (which does not include Mr Johnson, I believe) can participate in the election and because:

"A panel of Party officials will now sift through the list of potential candidates, selecting about nine or ten to go forward to the interview stage.

The interviews will be conducted by an electoral college, made up of leading London Conservatives, during the coming weekend. The college will draw up a short list of between 2 and 5 candidates, which will be announced at some point over the weekend."

So that no-one too embarassing gets any coverage.

Secondly, if the Tories are going to make any mileage from their primary as an attempt to re-energise democracy in the UK, it cannot be seen, in any way, to favour a candidate or candidates. Their trial of American-style primaries is only valid if Londoners have a real choice; the Tories owe Londoners that much, but seem unwilling to offer it. I hope that, if and when Boris does become the Tory candidate, any attempt on his part to claim any form at all of extra legitimacy is shot down as being based on a flawed process.

The Tories could learn from the Labour Deputy Leadership - it did a measure of good for the Party.

xD.

Guido on Boris

2007-07-17T22:07:00.000+01:00

Paul 'Guido Fawkes' Staines is, unsurprisingly, supporting Boris Johnson for Mayor of London. I don't that Mr Johnson would want the support of someone who advocates copyright theft is beyond me; I'd have expected Staines to be in favour of property rights, but it would seem that does not apply to people he doesn't like.

One of the problems with the blogosphere is that lots of people keep trying to break news stories. Unless a blogger is actually on scene or has a creditable source, it's barely worth trying. One person cannot compete with the news gathering capacity of a news outlet that actually has people on the street reporting on and looking for news, if for no other reason than that they seem to be permanently stuck behind their computer. Thus, we have Staines' first enlightening post:

Boris! Confirmed!

There is joy unabounded in Guido's cellar.

In fact this calls for a drink...

Hardly cutting-edge stuff. Guido thinks Boris is a good candidate, but cannot bring himself to say why. He also says:

Boris Campaign Under Way

Guido hears that Dan Ritterband, who was key in Cameron's leadership campaign, has switched from backing Nick Boles (pulled out due to serious illness) to campaigning for Boris.

A campaigning web-site will be live soon...

UPDATE : BackBoris.Com is live.

"Guido hears...". Well, good for bloody Guido. The last sentence is laughable. Does Guido thinks that it is newsworthy or bloggable in any way at all that Boris Johnson will have a website for his campaign for the Tory mayoral nomination? Later on, he links to it. How kind. I do know how to use Google. I'm sure other news sites will link to it.

Is it a particular surprise that someone who was 'key' in Cameron's campaign is moving to support the only decent candidate the Tories can muster for the mayoralty? Indeed, the other candidates are either now ministers in the Labour government, unfortunately ill, out of contention because they reportedly wanted to stand as a joint candidate with the LibDems, or completely unheard of.

He also is certain that Boris is going to win and comes up with some interesting ideas to back his position. He starts:

The Tories are more popular now than before and they have in Boris a likeable candidate.

Labour is also more popular - it is the LibDems who have suffered of late. Ken is also a popular candidate. Despite the howls of protestations from some corners when the congestion charge was introduced, Ken was re-elected on the basis of his platform. Boris, as yet, does not have a platform. Boris comes across as an amiable buffoon; that will go down rather less well in London than Henley. His attraction is on the basis that he is a 'character' or outspoken. Ken matches him on that.

He then goes on to say in the same post

He is extremely popular with the Conservative grassroots and if Boris just succeeds in motivating them to go out and vote, he will win. On the basis of the last election's results Boris needs to get an extra 1 in 5 Tory sympathisers in London to go to the polling station. This is without the extra oomph from the Conservatives nationally polling better than in 2004. Boris inspires a great deal of enthusiasm, he will without doubt energise that base. He also has first-name brand recognition.

One universally acknowledged fact is that the Conservative base tends to come out more than the Labour base, ceteris paribus. That extra one in five is harder for the Tories to find than for Labour. There is also extra oomph behind Labour at the moment. 'Ken' has as much first-name brand recognition as 'Boris'; it should be remembered that Ken and Boris have both appeared on Have I Got News For You seven times.

HIGNFY is a good place to point out the next problem with Boris. As Ian Hislop challenged Boris in 1998, Johnson provided information on the whereabouts of a News of the World reporter to one Darius Guppy, who wished to assault said reporter - a fact Johnson appears to have known. In short, Johnson is spectacularly gaffe-prone, matched only by Prince Philip. One insult on a par with Liverpool during the campaign could do for Boris' campaign. Pray remember that at the time he was in the shadow government.

Polly Toynbee does an excellent job in The Guardian of pointing out some of Johnson's many other flaws.

Going back to Guido, he also makes a rather large mistake - he predicts that Boris won't stand.

Boris - Latest

Nominations close 10 a.m. Monday - expect Boris to make an announcement on the day - not sure if it will be the announcement many hope for... [...]

and before Guido says that he meant it the other way:

Everyone is Backing Boris

Despite the fact that Guido rarely meets anyone who doesn't want Boris to run, [...]

As various other people have pointed out before, Guido Fawkes (aka Paul Staines) is a lousy blogger. His facts are pinched, his predictions wrong, his opinions at best misinformed and at worst deliberately misleading. In a similar way to the tabloid press, he has tapped into a vein of (as his website says) "Tittle Tattle, gossip and rumours" that does very little for democracy. Sadly, and more so because the same is true of the tabloids, people seem to listen to him.

Before you mention it, I know I said I wouldn't write about Guido Fawkes/Paul Staines any more. I relent. I'm going to. I do occasionally still flick onto his blog.

xD.

UPDATE 2210: Guido says on his 'Why Boris will win' post that

People seem to forget that Boris got to Eton on a scholarship, not because he was a toff, the buffoon tag can be shaken off easily.

which I find faintly laughable. It really is clutching at straws; his entire first-name brand recognition is based on being an eccentric toff. He has played off the image (or actually is an idiot). A rather week point, Guido, particularly as 'scholarship boys' can be really very middle class as those awards are given out on academic merit, inter alia, and often require middle class parents to send their child in that direction.

A challenge for you, Guido

2007-07-17T18:19:00.000+01:00

Guido Fawkes has been blogging lately at some length about Boris Johnson standing to be the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London.

The Conservatives' website has a news story that reads

Boris Johnson, the Henley MP and former Shadow higher Education Minister, was the last to put his hat in the ring before Monday's noon deadline for applications. Other contenders who have publicly launched their campaigns include Winston Mckenzie, Simon Fawthrop, Victoria Borwick, Warwick Lightfoot, Andrew Boff, Lurline Champagnie, and Lee Rotherham.

They will now compete with more than 40 others seeking the chance to run against Labour Mayor Ken Livingstone who is pitching for a third term in the contest next spring.

My question to Mr Fawkes is:

What are the names of the 'more than forty others' who have entered the race?

In the meantime, and for everyone else:

What effect will a period of Tory vs Tory in an election have on the Tories?
Will they come out of it as well as Labour did in their deputy leadership?
What effects will an open primary have?
Will party members (other than Tories) vote to screw up the open primary?
Is this an attempt to prop up a decreasing membership as card-carriers are now too removed from reality to be trusted?
Is this idea based on Labour's Supporters' Networks?

xD.

Velib - pay attention, Mr Livingstone

2007-07-15T22:40:00.000+01:00

Vélib is one of the best ideas I've heard of in some time. Attention please, Mr Livingstone. Using the equivalent of an Oyster card, you can hire a bike from an automated station around the city and return it to any other station. The first thirty minutes are free.

More information from BBC News and Vélib. The only problem is that I can't ride a bike, as I have an unfortunate tendency to fall off.

xD.

What price marriage?

2007-07-15T18:55:00.000+01:00

The Conservatives have come up with the idea that families are good and better if they're married. In their attempt to promote marriage, they have suggested a £20 a week tax break, effectively putting a price on what should be a contract you enter into for love and not financial reward or other convenience.

Aside from putting a value of £1040 a year on marriage, which according to the Church of England's form for the solemnization of matrimony, "no one should enter into ... lightly or selfishly", there is at least one large, logical flaw. If you accept the (frankly preposterous) idea that £20 a week will secure a relationship, you have to ask why that extra help is going to the people that the Conservatives think are already in a more stable relationship than to those who are in a less stable relationship.

I would add that the Conservatives can't really complain about social engineering anymore...

xD.

A nice thing about building your own computer

2007-07-15T15:59:00.000+01:00

...is that you feel a lot happier about opening the box to repair it. My computer's RAM went, and having put it together in the first place, it was pretty straightforward to replace it with a new set.

A nice thing about Ubuntu is that it's very easy to reinstall...

End geekiness.

xD.

New Job

2007-07-15T15:46:00.000+01:00

I start a new job tomorrow. I've had a couple of weeks off, during which I've been to my brother's graduation (a first in physiotherapy from Cardiff, with the highest mark in his year for the final year: 93, where the average was 54) and the wedding of Polina Obolenskaya and Barend Janse van Rensburg. Congratulations to all.

Hopefully, blogging will resume normal service fairly soon.

xD.

Glastonbury

2007-07-09T22:13:00.001+01:00

Apparently, on the way back from Glastonbury, there were problems with the trains and so there was a large group of people waiting in a very muddy field. Some wag started saying it was like a concentration camp - at which point someone in a uniform arrived to tell them that they could get on a train.

To make things worse, there was a large pile of wellington boots at the station. Some wag at that point shouted out an offer of a shower...

Via Max, a friend of my girlfriend's.

xD.

Jingo from the Tax Payers' Alliance

2007-07-09T16:11:00.000+01:00

My friend Matt Sinclair has pointed me to the Tax Payer's Alliance blog. I should declare an interest here - I am a taxpayer and no, I don't just mean VAT.

The latest post is a round-up of recent press coverage that the TPA like. It runs

Hollywood hard-man Bruce Willis interviewed in The Guardian:

"Q. Which living person do you most admire, and why?

I most admire the young man or woman who is fighting overseas. I don't need to know his or her name, but anybody who has a job that puts them in harm's way and potentially causes them to make the ultimate sacrifice, or to sacrifice any body part, for what they believe is their responsibility to their country, is my biggest hero...

Q. What single thing would improve the quality of your life?

A. Lower taxes."

Huh?

OK, let's look at this in order. The person Bruce Willis admires most is the 'young man or woman fighting overseas'. It is certainly a brave thing to be prepared to go wherever you are sent and to face quite extraordinary risks. I wonder, though, why it is that particular person who is chosen. It is somewhat jingo; are the police in the more violent parts of the great American cities less brave? The social workers in those areas? There are a hundred other candidate types of people, but it is unfailingly the military who receive these accolades. I suppose I'm asking why the military occupies such a prominent position in the American national psyche; it is not the only brave, worthy or dangerous occupation.

As to the second question - Mr Willis is probably very, very rich. Rich enough, one might say, to make Cresus blush. He can well afford his own insurance payments and doesn't need a national or social health (or otherwise) insurance scheme. He is not exactly a passenger on the Clapham omnibus.

xD.

Equal justice under law - 'Scooter' Libby and 'Tookie' Williams

2007-07-08T19:01:00.000+01:00

A little while ago, I wrote about how Paris Hilton received a comparatively light sentence and initially seemed to be let out (as she was rich, white and famous) while Genarlow Wilson was sentenced to an inordinate sentence of a decade in prison for consensual oral sex with someone a couple of years his junior.

The case of Lewis 'Scooter' Libby seems to be another case in point. Mr Libby has had his sentence commuted by President Bush so that, although he will remain a convicted felon and will receive a quarter-million dollar fine, he will not serve the thirty months in prison to which he was sentenced for perjury and obstruction of justice around revealing the identity of a CIA agent. The commutation was justified, according to President Bush, because of his long service to his country.

Compare and contrast with Stan 'Tookie' Williams. Before I go any further, I should say that Williams was for a long time a deeply unpleasant character - a murderer and founder of the Crips amongst other things. Nevertheless, he changed over time in prison. The precise details can be found here.

After a long time in solitary confinement, 'Tookie' wrote children's books against gangbanging and generally sought to repent, through deeds, for former crimes for which he later repented.

The sequence of events for Mr Libby was good --> bad --> redemption while for Mr Williams it was bad --> good --> execution. I was under the impression that it was a principle of justice that a previous good deed or deeds did not mitigate a later crime while repentance for the crime could do just that.

I am not saying for a moment that we should overlook Williams' very dark past - I don't think he tried to either - but all that was sought for him was life imprisonment rather than execution in recognition of his attempts to atone for his crimes. The punishment - the death penalty - was too severe (and, in fairness, I think it is always too severe) given the situation. In Libby's case, the statement from President Bush ran

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation. I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison. My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby.

The idea that the sentence was unduly harsh was contested, not least by the prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald. Nevertheless, the principle I'd've like to have seen applied in Williams' case did apply in the case of a well-connected, white man.

xD.

Religious idiocy

2007-07-01T22:26:00.000+01:00

I have various problems with organised religion. One is the problem most seem to have with homosexuality. The other is not doing something useful when there's a good opportunity to and, instead, condemning homosexuality.

Enter stage left: the Bishop of Carlisle, the Right Reverend Graham Dow. It may be that Bishop Dow sincerely believes that homosexuality is 'wrong'. It may also be that he is using the Bible to justify his prejudices. Either way, I think it would be more appropriate for a Bishop to offer support - spiritual or physical - at a time of crisis. Indeed, if the Bishop would like to bring people to Christianity or at least give the impression that it might be worth looking at, hellfire-and-brimstone prophesying and theological argument aren't necessarily the most effective way. In the meantime, it does nothing to help people who need it. Could the Bishop open his cathedral or other churches within his diocese to give the people who have lost their homes somewhere to sleep?

The Bishop's comments are included in this article from the Telegraph.

As I read it, the Bishop is saying that global warming is God's judgement for environmental desecreation, exploitation of the poor and gays. The Bishop said that "He expressed his sympathy for those who have been hit by the weather, but said that the problem with "environmental judgment is that it is indiscriminate" ", which makes God a bit of a bastard, really.

It's a little bit like the SWP's 'we are all Hizbollah' placards. It keeps the nutters who subscribe to that particular ideology on board and attracts the fellow-travellers while alienating pretty much everyone else. The end result, though, is sectarianism without, of course, actually achieving anything of any use at all.

xD.

I have a Nintendo Wii

2007-07-01T22:25:00.000+01:00

If you ask me, a Nintendo Wii is a pretty good way of spending your severance pay :). As it seems to cost about half the amount that the other consoles do, it's even better. Best of all is that it's fantastic. I'm sure I should marvel at the technology but it's fantastic. You get into the different Wii Sports games really quickly. Anyway, it's great and you should have one.

xD.

Stats for June

2007-07-01T22:24:00.000+01:00

I am quite pleased to have had, according to the Tracksy widget on my blog, 862 hits for June. Given the relative infrequency with which I update and that 'unoriginalname38.blogspot.com' hardly trips off the tongue, I think that's not bad.

I have a couple of weeks off as I change jobs, so I'm going to try to come up with some decent posts that will hopefully drive a bit of conversation.

xD.

COBRA

2007-06-29T15:56:00.000+01:00

Sounds terribly exciting, doesn't it? Images of a top-secret hideout, something like Dr. Strangelove, named after a dangerous animal, poised and ready to strike come up. Unfortunately, it only stands for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A. It's a room with lots of telephone lines. It's not something for Sky News to get all breathless about.

xD.

The problems with 24 hour news coverage

2007-06-29T15:46:00.000+01:00

I'm watching BBC News 24's coverage of the bomb that failed to go off on Haymarket. There is, it would seem, no other news going on anywhere in the world. The regular updates on the quarter-hour aren't happening.

Now, if this were a large story or lots of things were happening or there was new information to report, I'd understand the need for excluding everything else. Instead, they are repeating the same stories over and over. Infuriatingly, they've been endlessly interviewing people from the street. I dislike vox pops anyway - they're as unscientific as you can have - but I really don't care what someone who happened to be in the area thinks about how many people might have died. I heard this exchange on News 24:

Interviewer: "If there had been an explosion, what do you think would have happened?"

Are you, random person, an expert in explosives? Perhaps you have counter-terrorism training, or a medical practitioner of some description? Or perhaps you're a random person from the street who has nothing of value to add as we can see on the television what's going on.

Random: "I think there would have been a lot of fatalities. I would say there were about five hundred people in Tiger, Tiger"

I've been in Tiger, Tiger. It's on four floors. How useful is one random person's opinion of the number of people in there? How useful is their opinion, given that we have only a few details about the bomb, as to the potential number of fatalities? I'd go for 'not useful at all'.

In this report and others, all news channels, including the BBC, have this bloody awful tendency to interview each other. An anchor's job is to anchor and read the news - they are not experts in what's going on; nor are they meant to be. I want to hear what the expert or correspondent has to say (preferably with excess drama, hand-waving or trying to be the next Nick Robinson) without intervention from someone who's job is to read from an autocue.

The only development in the few hours I've been watching the story is closing off Park Lane because of a suspect vehicle in the area. Meanwhile, various government appointments have been made with no reporting, let alone commentary. I am an unashamed supporter of the idea of a BBC and of BBC news coverage. They would make me a lot happier if they led the way in separating news from commentary & opinion, covering what needs to be covered rather than what receives cheap viewing figures.

End rant.

xD.

Some predictions for the Cabinet

2007-06-28T09:57:00.000+01:00

Leader of the Commons - Harriet Harman
Chief Whip - Geoff Hoon
Leader of the Lords - Neil Kinnock

xD.

Is Cheney in the legislative or the executive branch?

2007-06-26T23:06:00.000+01:00

Well, there's a post title that won't attract many people. It is, though, a serious question. Instapundit, via Matt Sinclair, raises the interesting point that, according to the US Constitution, the Vice President would preside over their own impeachment in the Senate. I made this comment:

...This is a good example of something I've been thinking about quite a lot of late - the imperfections in the US constitution. There was, from what I can see, a lot of debate about what form the executive should take. Originally, the Pres and Veep were not elected on a ticket, and so the conflict of interest is not as obvious; indeed, any conflict might have been because of outright animosity between VP and President.

It is, though, an oversight - the number of occasions where this might happen would have been thought very small (indeed, correct - zero), but it shows that not every detail was considered and that parts were made both on the hoof and in a rush, as well as trying to avoid unnecessary controversies. It gives the lie to the 'genius of the constitution' and attempts to make it more than it is - a human, flawed document.

This is added to by something I heard on The Daily Show this evening - is the Vice President a member of the legislative branch, of the executive branch or of both? Certainly, the Vice President is mentioned in the sections on both legislature and executive (A1 S3 and A4 S1 inter alia) and has functions in both - to chair the Senate and break ties in the former instance and to replace the President if necessary in the latter. Beyond that, the Vice President's responsibilities are not set out.

The Daily Show's criticism was that Mr Cheney had refused to comply with an executive order on the basis that his functions were not entirely within the executive branch. At this point, various people came on to say that this was constitutionally ridiculous. I'm no expert, but I disagree with them on the basis that the constitution is not clear and so there is room for legitimate debate¹. The more damaging objection (which Jon Stewart made little of) was that he'd used a similar argument in a similar position in 2001, but saying that he was part of the executive to avoid legislative questions.

The constitutional niceties are somewhat unimportant. All this arguing goes to prove three points.

A. The constitution is wide-open to interpretation. Arrogating it, on the basis of longevity or emotional attachment², powers it does not warrant or deserve is profoundly dangerous. Given that great pains are taken to separate powers and guard against monarchical rule, or any semblance thereof, by corrupt or malign officials, it is a pretty pair of oversights that Mr Cheney has 'stumbled across'.
B. Even if the original document was perfect for its time, both times and it has changed. Amendments, such as those concerning election of the Vice President no longer being the person who came second for President, damage any coherence it may have had.
C. All the constitutional argument in the world does little good if some people are prepared to hide behind its details to avoid its spirit. The constitution is no more than a piece of paper if people go out of their way to avoid it and are abetted in so doing by legislators and the fourth estate.

1 - Mr Cheney's case was somewhat hurt by the release today of news that arms of the American state went out of their way to deceive, inveigle and obfuscate - as Mandy Rice-Davies would have said - well he would say that, wouldn't he? As I've said before, that's an ad hominem and a logical fallacy, but it doesn't change the amount of damage it does.
2 - This is an older ancestor worship than I used to think, although it has changed, I think, into focusing on individuals rather than principles. "We can win no laurels in a war for independence. Earlier and worthier hands have gathered them all. Nor are there places for us ... [as] the founders of states. Our fathers have filled them. But there remains to us a great duty of defence and preservation." Joseph J. Ellis; Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams. (2001) p. 214

Quentin Davies defects to Labour

2007-06-26T15:03:00.001+01:00

Quentin Davies, MP for Margaret Thatcher's hometown of Grantham and Stamford, has defected to the Labour party. More on the BBC News website. In a letter to Dave Cameron, Davies said that the Conservative party "appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything".

Davies isn't massively high-profile, but can't be dismissed as a back-bencher: he was shadow Minister for Pensions 1998-99, shadow Paymaster General 1999-2000, shadow Minister for Defence 2000-01 and shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 2001-03. He was First Secretary in the FCO after being Second Secretary in Moscow.

Iain Dale has been complaining about low coverage of the Conservatives - this should help!

xD.

Quintessential Englishness

2007-06-25T09:35:00.000+01:00

Unfortunately, I didn't have my camera, but walking through St James' Park yesterday, I had the sheer delight of seeing a police band playing (I think) a Souza march. The sun was shining; the birds were flying; the tourists were somewhat confused; and the whole thing was wonderful in every way.

It is part of a series of events in the Royal Parks that includes, of course, a bandstand programme.

xD.

What price Jon Cruddas' support, Harriet?

2007-06-24T19:52:00.000+01:00

Well, congratulations to Harriet Harman on winning the Labour deputy leadership and commiserations to everyone else. Looking at the results, it's pretty clear that Jon Cruddas' votes transferred to Harriet in the last redistribution, narrowly pushing her past the winning post. Jon Cruddas' clear call at the Newsnight hustings to put Harriet as second preference, it is probably fair to say, won the election for Ms Harman.

For the record, I supported Jon Cruddas and my reasons are here.

Given that he started the campaign as an unknown, rank outsider (I hadn't heard of him, despite having campaigned in Barking, although that probably says as much about me as anything), his performance was fantastic. There will be no extraction of a pound of flesh from the Cruddas camp, but I do hope that both Jon's support for Harriet and the significant support his campaign had will lead to a few specific things being pushed. I hope these will include:

A fourth option on housing
If not an apology, a reassessment of how the Labour party and the country were treated over the Iraq war
As a corollary, an establishment of the principle that the Commons can vote on war
A more positive attitude towards immigrants and an end to some of the frankly inflammatory things we've heard of late
Legislation to improve work/life balance
An increase in the minimum wage
Looking at whether the minimum wage should be higher for London
Increased support for families - both financial and legislative for working conditions
Greater rights for part-time, temporary and agency workers

I suspect that we are also going to see action of some form on private equity.

There was, it would seem, no deal before the hustings; Harriet did not (as I recall) tell her voters to second preference Jon Cruddas or anyone else. Nevertheless, he did tap into a real current of both thought and discontent with the current situation on which all the other campaigns later sought to capitalise.

One final note. Both BBC News 24 and Sky News were reporting that Ms Harman had won before the result was announced at the conference. That is either a deliberate or an accidental leak; either way, it is unfortunate. The latter case suggests a weakness in security while the former suggests collusion between the news networks and the Labour party. What was Tony saying about a 'feral beast'?

xD.

Which hat should I buy next?

2007-06-22T14:46:00.000+01:00

As people who know me IRL will know, I usually wear a hat and there are pictures of some of my hats that change with each page load at the top of the blog. I've decided it's time for a new hat and I want to know what people think. I'm probably going to splash out a bit and buy one from Lock and Company of St James. The choices are a Chelsea, a Louisiana, a Manhattan, a Vienna, a York, an Astrakhan, a deerstalker or a Madison. Click on the links for images. What do people think?

xD.

The poll has now closed. The York won. Images can be found at Lock and Co's website.

Thoughts on Lib-Lab

2007-06-21T17:02:00.000+01:00

Gordon Brown has, it would seem, approached various Lib Dems with a view to joining the Government in some capacity, possible at the Cabinet table. The story was broken, I think, by the Guardian this morning. I can't help but think that this might be the first shot in a coalition negotiation in case the next general election ends up with no-one having an overall majority. The people are pretty well respected - Paddy Ashdown, Lord Carlile, Lord Lester and Rabbi Julia Neuberger.

1. It certainly puts the cat amongst the pigeons. One of the problems with being a third party is how much you sacrifice to get into government. The debate now has to go on at the top, and it already seems to be causing splits.

2. I'd originally heard that Paddy Ashdown would have a job around Iraq rather than Northern Ireland. That would seem to me to be more logical - he has a track record of 'dealing with Muslims' in Bosnia, he's already involved in Northern Ireland as the head of the parades body and Northern Ireland seems to be settling down. Moreover, the LibDems are best placed to oppose Iraq in total and it's where most help is needed.

3. It gets both Labour and the LibDems used to and thinking about a coalition. My suspicion is that the leadership of the LibDems, particularly the Orange Book faction, are to the right of the membership and LibDem voters. I don't think it's controversial to say that a lot of LibDem voters vote yellow because they see it as being to the left of Labour's red. It will be talked about by ordinary LibDems and may flow upwards - if the choice were between Labour and Tory, who would the LibDems rather go with? I think it will be Labour.

4. It makes Gordon Brown look statesmanlike and above narrow, party politics when there was probably no danger of the LibDems accepting happening.

5. It takes the heat from the press off the people who are likely to be in government, giving Brown a bit more time to decide who to put where. Tony Blair didn't leave enough time in his diary for the negotiations about filling government posts and the job may, particularly depending on the outcome of the deputy leadership elections, be rather more difficult as there are rather more people with track records, good and bad, in government.

6. It will be no surprise if there are more talks with people like Paddy. Party aside, he does seem to have something of a knack for conflict resolution. Equally, bringing in the independent reviewer of terrorism from the LibDems would make it harder for the LibDems to bang on the civil liberties drum.

7. One wonders who was the driver for working with the LibDems, so rapidly dropped after Labour's first, crushing general election victory, between 1994 and 1997.

8. Lord Lester, the LibDems' Lords equalities spokesperson, seems to be the most likely candidate, willing as he is to join in on constitutional reform. Any constitutional changes should need cross-party support, and Lester's presence would make it easier to woo LibDems. I wonder if Lester will say that there should be gradual change, starting with the Lords, before PR in some form for the Commons happens.

Interesting things have been written by Skipper, Threescore Years & Ten and the inimitable Iain Dale.

xD.

Amusing search terms that have led to my blog

2007-06-21T11:39:00.000+01:00

"do i have to pack a bag when i go to court for sentencing"
"glass outlets in yeovil"
"why did david cole die?"

I can confirm that reports of my death have been grossly overstated.

All from the Tracksy widget I have on my blog.

xD.

Treasury Select Committee on private equity

2007-06-20T17:30:00.000+01:00

I encourage everyone to watch the Treasury Select Committee tearing into representatives of the private equity groups Permira, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co (KKR), 3i and Carlyle Group. I'll write it up later, but this session was meant to finish at 1615 - a one hour session is now at two hours and fifteen minutes and counting.

You can watch it at www.parliamentlive.tv.

xD.

Hear the voice behind the blog

2007-06-20T13:48:00.000+01:00

I will be giving the opening speech at the University of London Cogers this evening at 1900 at The Plough, 27 Museum Street. Map here.

Former speakers include John Wilkes.

More on the Cogers here and here.

xD.

Sir Salman Rushdie 2.0

2007-06-20T13:39:00.001+01:00

I wrote here that

I'm sure that the FCO and Cabinet Office would have considered the impact that this knighthood would have

and it turns out I'm completely wrong, as the Guardian reports:

It emerged today that the government arts committee that recommended the knighthood did not discuss any possible political ramifications, and reportedly never imagined that the award would provoke the furious response that it has done in parts of the Muslim world.

The one good thing about this apparent, er, oversight is that it kicks the stool from under those in Iran who that this was a calculated insult to them - it wasn't calculated at all.

What role should politics play in awards, honours and decorations? Should we be able to recognise the great if not necessarily good - as in the Nobel Peace Prizes that went to Henry Kissinger, Mikhail Gorbachev and Yasser Arafat? While I am prepared to accept that good came of Gorbachev, for instance, I'm not sure at all that it was deliberate, given that he wanted to open communism enough to guarantee its survival. I'm not sure I agree with sport being 'beyond politics' - viz., the South African sports boycott - and so the same applies here. Ultimately, for literary accolades at least, the determination should be done on the basis of someone's writing.

Does anyone know what awards Iran gives out and who has received them?

xD.

Sir Salman Rushdie

2007-06-19T10:58:00.001+01:00

I haven't read any of Salman Rushdie's books. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. He should, though, be able to write what he wants free from intimidation. A lot of people are condemning the reactions to his knighthood - that is well and good. I hope that someone in Pakistan is writing that the reactions are misguided, wrong and damaging to perceptions of Islam.

One slight note of caution. By being offered and accepting a knighthood, Rushdie does become part of the establishment. This is neither good nor bad, and is often a sign of the mature period of a writer's career. While it does not signify any form of approval of the content of his works, it does perhaps echo the general unease that some feel around Muslim-'Western' relations.

I'm sure that the FCO and Cabinet Office would have considered the impact that this knighthood would have. My concern is that his gradual reappearance into public life has made people here fail to appreciate that it is entirely possible that the last time Rushdie's name was heard to some was in connection with the Satanic Verses, with ignorant fervour whipped up by self-promoting clerics.

Interesting things on this have been written by Matt Sinclair, Tiberius Gracchus, Vino and Iain Dale.

I think one thing could help both this and the aftermath of the Danish cartoons would be for a senior Muslim in the UK - Iqbal Sacranie? - to say that it is acceptable and perhaps necessary to criticise Islam.

xD.

Is the Independent plagiarising chain emails?

2007-06-18T12:47:00.000+01:00

I received this email from my good friend, Molly Mulready-Jones, over email on the sixth of June. It's rather long, so it follows below. The same piece appeared in today's Independent. The by-line on both is Carole Angier. I wonder what's going on there. Did they commission this from Carole Angier? In which case, how did it end up doing the rounds on email a couple of weeks beforehand? Anyway, I hope you read it and I'm glad of the publicity in the Indie.

Read the rest of this post by clicking here.

Dog

I tell you my story, but I don't tell you my name. People say 'a dog's life'. You can call me Dog.

I come from Africa. I don't say where. My father leave my mother when I was very young. I don't remember him, he never take care of me. My mother did her best, she work selling fruit in the market, but we were poor. In Africa no money, no school, so I never go to school. Sometimes my mother gone a long time and leave me with friends. They don't treat me well, sometimes I don't have enough to eat. Then I have to beg on the street. Already young I beg - maybe 5, 6 years old. Young.

So my life is rough from the start, maybe God want to prepare me. But he prepare me well, because my mother is a good woman. She love me and teach me good things - work hard, don't steal, trust in God. All good things I know I learn from her. But one day she don't come back. I ask and ask her friends, but they don't tell me for a long time. Finally they say she died. I was maybe 10 years old. I don't even know where she is buried, or who pay for her grave.

I still stay with the friends, but I have to beg much to survive. One day on the street a man call me to go and buy something for him. He was a black man, but French, not African - a French businessman. When I come back quick he ask me why I am not at school. I tell him my situation. After that he employ me whenever he is in my country. He become almost like a friend.

Maybe two years pass like this. One day he tell me I am a smart kid, I should go to school. He can send me to school, he say, or he can take me to Europe. What do I want to do? I have nothing in my country, so I say: Europe.

I don't know how he fix documents for me, I never have any of my own. Maybe he say I am his son or so. Anyway we have no problem. We come to France, to Paris.

He take me to a friend, let's call him Paul. Paul's place is small, only one bed. I sleep on the floor. I only get to sleep in a bed when Paul is away.

Every now and then the businessman come to visit us. I ask when I can work, when I go to school, but nothing happen. Maybe he have more problem than he thought to get papers for me. In Europe you have to have papers for everything.

I take care of Paul's place, like a servant, and he give me food and clothes, but no money. Sometimes I go into cafés and ask people for money, and sometimes they give me. But I'm not so smart now, usually I learn fast, but I can't learn French well. I don't know why, maybe I was scared. French people are very proud of their language, if you don't speak it good they don't like you.

After a few years the businessman stop coming to see us. Then Paul don't want to keep me any more. He tell me he is going away and I can't come with him. I stay in his room alone for a while. But then someone come and ask questions - who am I? Who do I stay with? So I leave the room and never go back. I was 16 years old.

From now on my life is so hard I don't want to remember it. I suffer much, I tell you. For years I sleep rough on the streets, in Paris and other cities. I beg for money and food, I can't wash much, I sleep in bus shelters, or in discos, which are free to go in after midnight. But I remember my mother. I never commit crime. I drink alcohol sometimes, already at 16, 17 I need to drink sometimes. But I never touch drugs, because I see what they make people do. I am not that kind of person.

After all this time I know lots of people like me, Africans and others, who sleep on the streets of your cities in Europe. I want to go where I can speak English, it's my best European language. People tell me: Holland. A friend help me buy a ticket, and I go.

Holland was better than France for me, but Holland was not good either. Yes, people speak English, but not for work. So I learn Dutch, but it take long time to learn enough. I earn money cleaning in bars and clubs, but that is not enough either. I try many cities - Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague - but more years pass and I am still sleeping rough.

I am in my 20s now, maybe half my life is over. I see the way things are going is no good. I don't want to be on the streets any more, I must have a proper plan for my life. And I decide it must be England. Everybody speak English there. I like the English people I meet, I like the football - the best team in the world is Man United. So I speak to a friend of mine, a Dutchman. He tell me that England is not like the continent: you need documents to get there, but once you are there, there is good work. He help me. He give me a Netherlands ID and a plane ticket. I thank him again now.

The ticket take me to Belfast. In Belfast they say it is not my photograph on the ID card. I say I want to claim asylum but they say no, I cannot claim asylum in the UK. They put me in prison for 4 days and they send me back to Holland.

I tell my friend what happen. He give me a new ID card and new ticket, train this time. And this time, no problem. UK Immigration officers check my ID on the train. They say safe journey, I say thank you. Last time I have a friendly chat with Immigration. Hah!

When the train stop I ask people where we are: London! I'm happy. I don't ask asylum, because the Belfast man tell me they don't give it. And I don't want asylum, I want work. My mission is not to go back on the streets again, to support myself, to survive.

I walk around London all day. And lucky for me, I see a guy I know from Amsterdam. He tell me he live in another city, I should come with him. He take me to a house where I can sleep. It's full of people and I have to sleep on a chair, but no problem, I'm happy.

The guy tell me to go to an agency and ask for work. And I see it is true - plenty of work in England. I get a job in a warehouse straight away, order pick-up. I work two weeks, they like me, already they want me to work full-time. But this job is not in the city. I go back to the agency and get a job in the city instead. Warehouse again, I not say where.

I'm a good worker, everywhere I work they like me. So after a few weeks this company say I should work full-time too. By now I don't sleep on the chair any more, I rent my own house and sleep in my own bed. First time in my life, I live on my own. I live on my own, and everything I have is for me. My bed is for me, my chair is for me. That is my plan, and already after 5, 6 weeks in the UK it is coming true. I can't believe it, I tell you. And now they offer me full-time, and permanent. If I say no, maybe I lose everything. So I take the risk. I give the job centre my ID card and ask for NI number. They say, come back in a week.

I go back in a week, but nothing. For 4 months I keep going back, but always they're still investigating my card. I work every day, overtime too. I buy good things, quality things, I enjoy my life for the first time. I pay all my bills - rent, utilities, council tax - all I pay. Council tax is big for me, but no problem. I'm glad to pay, I'm proud to pay. I keep all the receipts, I can prove to you. Never I owe a penny to anyone.

When it take so long for the NI number I worry, sometimes I have bad intentions in my mind. But I think - I'm not doing any wrong. Finally I get appointment to collect my number. My friends say I shouldn't go, maybe they will arrest me for working illegally. I can't believe this, I don't know that what I am doing is so wrong. So I don't run away, I just wait for the appointment day. Then that morning the police come and arrest me. They charge me with deception, and say I commit a crime.

From that day two years ago I am a criminal, everyone treat me like a criminal. But what did I do? I don't hurt anyone, I don't cheat anyone, I work hard and pay my way. But they say it is a crime. OK, I obey.

Immigration officers come and interview me. One officer says I can wait at home for my trial, but I mustn't run away. I live at home 6 weeks not working, lucky for me I pay my landlord a month in advance. When I report to the officer, he's surprised. 'You're a good guy,' he say. 'People like you I don't see. I ask you not to run away and you didn't run away. You came.'

I go to court and they sentence me: 12 months in prison. This is hard, I tell you. I don't like prison, prison spoil your record, and I know myself I'm not a criminal. But still I obey. I don't fight, I don't get into any trouble. Mornings I go to school, English and computer, afternoons I work - pack instruments and load them in cars. When I finish my sentence I have £300, I work so hard. The officers like me and treat me well. They see I am not a criminal.

In prison a lady come from Croydon and tell me to seek asylum. I say, 'This asylum I'm seeking, you won't give it to me, so why you waste my time?' She say, 'That is the procedure.' So I obey. I give more interview. Always interview, interview, don't you know what I tell you already? I swear to God I don't give any more interviews in my life. I don't know what you want from me. - OK, sorry. I know you're not Home Office. Sometimes I think everybody Home Office. Huh.

Already in prison Immigration tell me they can't get travel document for me. That is September 2005, more than one year and a half ago. One year and a half pass, and still they say it will come. It will never come. I leave at 12, no papers, no school. Should I wait my whole life for a document that will never come? This is my story, they should look in my face and see I don't lie. They think we all lie, but it's not true. They should investigate! They should distinguish! They say they treat each case on its merits. That is the lie. Huh!

OK, no problem. No problem. I serve 6 months, good behaviour, my sentence is done. So it come to the day of my release. Any time I remember that day I need to cry. When I reach the gate they say 'No. Home Office says you go back.' I say 'Why?' They don't tell me, but later I hear it's because there's no room at the detention centre. Whose fault is that, Home Office or me? But who serve the extra month in prison, Home Office or me?

No problem. After a month they send me to detention centre. This is better. You can have phone calls, you can walk outside. Yeah, at first it is better. But I tell you, not for long. They cheat you. You can't make money here, like in prison, instead they take the money you have. Phone card outside cost £3.50, they take £5, mobile phone outside cost £15, they take £30, sometimes more. And what's the difference between detention and prison? I tell you - no difference. People are monitoring you, you have CCTV on you everywhere. They decide for you, you cannot decide for yourself. Nothing. They take everything from you - your photograph, your fingerprint, your DNA, your independence. Nothing left.

And some of the officers here worse than in prison. Not all, no - I'm not like Home Office, I distinguish. Some are very good, kind, they treat you well. But we are all foreigners here, and the British don't like foreigners. Some of the officers, I swear, the way they talk to you - as if you are an animal. As if you are not a human being, because you are illegal. Huh. I don't want to talk much. If you are illegal you are not a human being in Britain. That is the problem.

I stay in the detention centre 6 months. Every month I get report from Immigration. Wait for document, wait for document, all they change is the date. I get crazy - we all get crazy, I tell you. Worse than prison. In prison you know - 6 months, 2 years, whatever your sentence, you serve it and you go. In detention you don't know how long, maybe you die there. You feel you're dying already.

And then come the worst thing. Lawyers.

I have a lawyer the police give me for my criminal case. He visit me in prison and I sign for legal aid. He keep saying he come, but he don't come. He keep saying he write to Home Office for my case, he write to court for bail, but I don't hear a thing. Finally I get a date for bail. A week before he come and say: 'I see from your case you will lose. So legal aid don't pay, I can't represent you.' I say, 'Why you don't tell me before, I find someone else!' He say if I pay, he will represent me. That is his strategy - he tell you so late, you have nowhere else to turn.
He ask for £3000. I say - 'You know my situation, how can I get £3000?' I have a friend, maybe she can get £1000. But he say No. Huh! I don't smoke, but that day I smoke nearly three package cigarettes. I lose hope. In fact, that day I nearly die.

When I go to the court, the lawyer don't come, and he don't send my friend's address either. I speak for myself, and I see the judge want to release me. But without address she can't release me. Huh! I tell you. So I don't get bail.

Later I try again. Would you believe what happen this time? On that day I get up early, I shower, I dress well. But they don't come to pick me. So I go and ask what happen, and they say - the van is gone. The van is gone without me… Then the court write and say I don't come. What! What do you expect me to do? Should I fly? Am I invisible? Don't do that! Don't do that to people!

After that the lawyer ask me for money again, but I finish with him. I find new lawyer - and you know what happen? He's worse than the old one! He come and take £200 from me fast, then I don't hear from him for a month. Every time I ring him he say, 'Hey, hey, Mr Dog, I'm busy man, hang up the phone!' Once I ask to speak to him, I hear him tell his secretary to say he's not there. I hear it on the phone. People think if you are from Africa you don't have sense. They treat you like an idiot, but I am not an idiot. Hah!

Finally I get letter saying we have court, he need £500 for barrister. My friend get me £500. How can I repay her? - but I have no choice. When we get to court, no barrister, if I don't speak up fast maybe she never come. Then she come, but she don't know my case well at all. She speak real quick, maybe 7, 8 minutes. That's all.

Long time I hear nothing, and when I do I wish I didn't. The judge say my case is nonsense. Nonsense! And he tell lies - Home Office lies, no one answer for me. Like I live in council house - not true! I live private and pay. Like I have three bank accounts. Not true!! They fit you up, they tell lies and don't let you answer. The law has abused me, how can I trust the law? Legal aid lawyers, private lawyers, all the same. You take £700 from me and represent me like that! I have a friend in detention, his lawyer take £1600 and not represent him at all. You're in detention, then you're deported, what can you do? Nothing! They know. That's what the Home Office should investigate! That's who the criminals are!

OK, no problem. No problem. Huh.

Now I show you I remember good people too. After my Appeal was dismissed I have no hope left, no money left, nothing. But God is there. When I am on the bottom he send good people to me. I get a volunteer visitor, and I get BID - Bail for Immigration Detainees. They help me. They find a new lawyer for my case, they prepare a new bail application for me. I give thanks for them always, and I pray for them hard. If not for them…. I have no family. My friend, my visitor, BID - I take them as my family now.

But now I have to tell you bad again. Immigration are wicked, they try to frustrate you, they try to paralyse your life. As soon as you have bail hearing they give you removal date. I'm nervous, I can't stand any more. I go to Immigration manager and say it's 6 months, they should release me. She say - Go to Colnbrook and get tag. I say no, she should give me a tag from here. But she not agree. That day I am really annoyed, I am really worried. Some people are on hunger strike, and I join them. It's only one day. But I say I'm not going to eat, and I don't eat. And bang - they send me to Colnbrook. Not for tag - that's a lie. Because I join the hunger strike, and they want to break us up.

Now I have to tell you worse. There are things, if I remember them I need to drink. I need to buy alcohol and drink.

They page me, and when I come they say they transfer me. I say, let me go and pack my bags, but they say no. They say if I don't co-operate they will force me. Is that a way to talk? If you talk to me, talk nicely!

They take me to the van by force. Not because I resist - I don't have the chance. I bet the manager say 'Take that boy by force.' And one officer - I never forget him. He hold my neck, he pull my leg - ****. He treat me worse than a criminal. I don't forget.

OK, no problem. No problem. Huh.

I get to Colnbrook. I don't talk much about that. They put me in a wing you're only supposed to stay 72 hours max and they send you, but they can't send me. That room, if I say it I need to cry. You can't go out, only maybe 15 minutes. Security watch you all the time, you only allowed 10 minutes phone calls…. It's a punishment. What did I do?

They move me, but still it's bad. Not the officers, they're good there. But Colnbrook is prison - no air, nothing. Everybody frustrated, everybody get crazy. You remember what happen at Harmondsworth? Why you think they burn that prison? Because of frustration. You think if someone is in good condition, they do that? If you put a person in a cage you spoil his mind. Huh!

I stay in Colnbrook six weeks. Then come the day I never believe will arrive: I go to court with two sureties, my friend and my visitor, my lawyer send me good barrister, and I get released. Yeah, I remember that barrister too, I thank her too. The guards give me my stuff in a big plastic bag. It's heavy, and it's made for criminals - you can see inside, no bomb. But I don't care. I'm free.

That day was more than 8 months ago. For 8 months I try to keep up my spirits, to count my blessings. My lawyer work hard to get my case reviewed. I live with my friend in nice house, I sleep in a soft bed, not on the street. She help me a lot, and I help her, with her house, with her children. I try to remember that this is good. I do remember, in fact I take my life now as paradise, compared to before. But sometimes, I tell you - I can't help it, it's hard. I live in someone's house again, like houseboy. I am not that type of person, but I don't have a choice. I can't work, I can't pay her back, I can't pay anything. I am dependent. Just for a bus ticket, a pint of Guinness - I have to ask her every time. And she don't have much money either, sometimes she get upset with me. Sometimes we fight, and she say bad things to me. Then I feel she's like everybody else, she betray me too. Sometimes, I swear, I don't trust anyone in Britain any more - not my new lawyer, not you either - why do you want to know all this from me? Maybe you'll put me in problem too.

I go to school, I learn English and maths, my teacher say I'm doing very good. But that is once a week, one hour or two. The rest of the time I am in the house. I sleep a lot. And always I think about my case, about how to survive, not to be in this mess-up. Always I think, think, think, round and round. I am not in prison any more, but this is prison too.

I say to Home Office: After 8 months more, what are you still looking for? Still you are deporting me, still you don't want me - what have I done? What about the things you did to me? You lie about me in a court of law, you treat me like a criminal - worse than a criminal. You treat me like a terrorist. But I am not a terrorist. I'm a foreigner, that's all. Because I am a foreigner, you can do what you like to me. Hah!

What about the immigration lawyers that cheat me, what about the British company that cheat me too? My last salary they owe me - £1200, £1300. But when I was arrested they say that is not my name, and they take the money back. Who do the work, me or my name?

I say this to Home Office, and to anyone who read my story: I was an orphan in Africa, and a street boy in France and Holland, and the worst things in my life happen here. You come to my country first and take money away, I want to work and leave my money here. You can kill me without knife, without gun. Sometimes I feel like you already succeed.

I say to Home Office: I didn't come here for benefit, I didn't come here for council house or bank loan. My mission is to sweat and work and survive. If that is a crime, I serve my time for it, and more. Now I am out, but still you punish me. First I have to sign at police station, every time I go I feel shame. Then you send me to sign 40 miles away, how can I get there when I don't work? Huh! Let me work! No benefit, just work. Even if you give me one year, I'm happy. It give me a chance. I pay back my friend, I'm independent, I hold up my head again.

That is the important thing I want to say. Let people work. If don't want criminals, let them work. You stop them working, you make them criminals. What choice have they got? If you don't treat people like human beings, maybe they can't behave like human beings any more.

If you don't listen, I swear I don't know what I do. I am an honest person, but the way you treat people, you spoil their mind. If you provoke me much, you make me do what I don't want to do…. I pray hard not to do it. I pray hard to keep my conditions, not to betray anyone who trust me, not to run away. No. I know in my mind what I will do. I'm prepared to die for my case, I swear. If they detain me again, I won't cooperate any more. Never in my life will I eat. Never in my life will I call anyone - no lawyers, no friends, no one. Let them kill me! Maybe my life will end like this. It is always in my mind.

xD.

Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England

2007-06-18T11:52:00.001+01:00

From my line manager...

The Government has an Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England. Unfortunately, the acronym is AHRSE.

Father Jack would approve...

xD.

PopBitch, Paris Hilton and Genarlow Wilson

2007-06-17T01:15:00.000+01:00

I don't usually like PopBitch - it is scurrilous rumour-mongering. However, they make a valid point, as they sometimes do, in their latest bulletin on a 17-year old black man sentenced to ten years in jail for consensual oral sex with a fifteen year old. Do please read.

Black day for justice

Paris Hilton
* Drifted through a variety of private schools. Left with few qualifications.
* Home sex video made when 19 brought global fame.
* Caught on camera enjoying what appears to be gak and weed.
* A series of DUI arrests and driving while on probation lead to 23 days in jail.
* Released by LA sheriff after three days. Now back in a correctional facility but still able to call TV presenters with her story.
* Found God on the day her agents sacked her.

Genarlow Wilson
* Star athlete and honours student in Georgia.
* Convicted of consensual oral sex, aged 17, with a 15 year-old girl, at a New Year's Eve party.
* 10 year prison sentence, plus lifetime on sex offenders' register.
* This week US judge overturned the ruling, after he'd served two years.
* Ex-President Jimmy Carter has written to Georgia's attorney-general to question whether his treatment was racially motivated.
* Georgia's attorney-general appeals against new ruling, Genarlow is still in jail.

FYI: As the law stands, Wilson cannot return to his own family if released, as he has an 8 year-old sister and he would be forbidden contact.
http://www.wilsonappeal.com/update.html

FYI 2: In Georgia until 1998 oral sex even between husband and wife was punishable by 20 years in prison.

To say that teenagers messing around deserves ten years is 'cruel and unusual'; to say that and then allow someone drink-driving - inherently dangerous - to be given half their sentence for good behaviour before entering prison and considering allowing part of the sentence to be served in a palatial mansion is grossly unfair even before considerations of wealth and race are taken into account. All this in a country which is supposed to be the home of the free.

xD.

Russia: a czar living in greatly reduced circumstances

2007-06-15T15:50:00.000+01:00

Russia does come across as an old aristocrat, now living in greatly reduced circumstances, that feels the desperate need to maintain appearances. If we can call Russia a person, it does seem to have moved on from communism by selling not just the family silver, but the estate's mills, mines and factories. A lot of land has been lost along the way, and it is now reduced to drinking aftershave to dull its pain.

Meanwhile, it feels the need to keep up with the other lords of the international community, retaining a million troops, nuclear weapons and submarines and the like. It is much like the lord who polishes the Rolls-Royce but can't afford to have the engine serviced, who has the front room kept immaculately but has all the other furniture covered in dust sheets.

A combination of events have conspired to weaken Russian democracy. I can only surmise that it is nationalism that keeps people in line. Mother Russia's call and the desire to be part of a whole that is somehow great even when your conditions are wretched and blinding you to an oligarchy that keeps you down. Quite aside from the racism and homophobia that Russia has seen of late, I wonder where it will go if the population continues to decline.

xD.

Why I am voting Jon Cruddas for deputy leader

2007-06-11T19:54:00.000+01:00

Now that my ballot paper has arrived, I have had to make a decision on the deputy leadership. I'm going to give Jon Cruddas both my first preferences.

Before I look at the candidates, I think it makes sense to say what I think the deputy leader should do. I do not think it is about any particular policy agenda - that is for the leader and Conference – but for all the policy agendas and representing the concerns of the rank-and-file membership to the top and organising the party.

That means I can overlook the Iraq war vote (for the record, I was and am against) and specific political policies to a certain extent. I'm interested in implementing what the Labour movement feels is appropriate, rebuilding the party in terms of membership, campaigning and debate. This requires a debate on policy issues - not necessarily the fine detail but the direction and rationale of policy. I do not believe that this would lead to infighting and the like, bringing down a fourth-term Labour government. If anything, the evidence points the other way, as the debate around the deputy leadership has brought people back to the Party.

My suspicion is that Benn would advocate things I'd like on international development, Hain on racism, Northern Ireland and devolution, Harman on women's and family issues and work/life balance and Johnson on perhaps work issues and disadvantaged bits of society. While those are all worthy goals, they should not be the responsibility of the deputy leader to implement. Indeed, such a situation would be almost designed to lead to conflicts within Cabinet, with conflicts between the party-mandated deputy leader and responsible minister.

Some links I've found useful:

Jon Cruddas
A lot of the talk during this election has been out regenerating the party rather than any specific policy platform. This has been led by Jon, who has rather captured the debate. There is something different about Cruddas. He's not been a minister, but you can hardly call him inexperienced, having worked in Number Ten. I've heard a lot of stuff about Cruddas being left wing that I think is hooey. I think he both stands for and would achieve greater responsiveness of the leadership to the party. If his position has changed over the past few years, it is by recognising that the party membership often has good instincts - on the fourth option for housing, for instance - and that the leadership could do well to listen to them. Importantly, I think that Cruddas, not taking on a ministerial portfolio, would have the time to do the job properly.

Cruddas has, I think, captured the debate for the deputy leadership. Everyone else is talking about reconnection and re-engagement and the need to regenerate the party. I’d say that either Cruddas has, as I say, captured the debate, or that some or all of the other candidates are saying that they will give the rank and file more of a voice when they need their votes, or that they are being completely honest (which I believe is true along with point one), in which case I ask why this hasn’t been done before.

The People's Commissar of Englightenment has some good reasons to vote for Jon Cruddas. Some that come top on my list are:

Jon is the candidate most committed to party democracy, pledging to be the voice of the grassroots party and union members with a direct link to government.
Jon will refuse the office of Deputy Prime Minister, or any other Cabinet position, to concentrate on party matters.
Jon has pledged to rebuild the party into an effective campaigning organisation.
Jon wants to help revive internal democratic structures, such as the National Policy Forum by restoring the constituency link.
Jon wants to see the opening up of Conference, increasing the role of the grassroots.
Jon supports the idea of a review of Young Labour, currently in a moribund state.
Jon will fight for each CLP to gain £3 per voter that will fund local organisers, boosting local activity.
Jon realises the importance of the independence of CLPs and wishes to grant them the freedom to spend their budget how they see fit.

Harriet Harman
Well, Jon suggested that people transfer to Harriet. To be honest, I’m not sure what she’s standing for. Her website has a biography with lots of worthy achievements, but nothing (that I can see) about going forward, particularly in terms of regenerating the party.

Her principal point is polling that suggests she would be the most popular deputy leader electorally. I think that this doesn’t account for the benefits a reinvigorated membership could bring. A door knock and a cup of tea wins more votes than the particular person occupying the deputy leadership and that requires a different sort of deputy leader. I do hope she has a senior position under Brown, though.

Alan Johnson
Alan's straight answers on the Newsnight hustings impressed me. I like someone who can both answer a straight question. His answer on housing I particularly like:

Only 1 per cent of social housing is occupied by foreign nationals: they are not the cause of the housing problem - their exclusion is not a solution. We must build more social housing so we can allocate accommodation to those who need it, not just those who need it the most.

I have to be honest and say that the endorsement of The Sun does not endear Mr Johnson to me, but it doesn’t affect my impression the other way either. Mr Johnson’s website includes the following in an open letter to Labour party members:

The key role of the Deputy, however, must be subordinate to and supportive of the Leader; to carry out whatever duties the Leader sees as being essential to securing a fourth term of office.

I have to disagree. The deputy leader must have a clear vision of what they want to do that does not conflict needlessly with the leader, but that does not involve subordinating the role; quite the opposite, in fact.

Hilary Benn
Comes across as very nice, has held the international development portfolio and has the voice and gestures of his father. Fortunately, he has none of the fractiousness. Just as a quick aside, I'd have liked to have seen him done more in terms of corporate philanthropy. While I don't doubt that he would be competent, I don't see any reason to vote for him. Nor, though, do I see any reason to vote against him, so it won't surprise me if he picks up lots of second and third preferences and comes through to win.

Mr Benn's letter to CLPs runs:

I want to live in a country where people show the same concern about poverty, whether in Africa or at home.
I want politics to place as much importance on our children and family life as we do on economic stability.
I want a society where we ask people to give something back, where we celebrate public servants and public services and where we all pull together to make our communities safer, cleaner and greener.
I want the Labour Party to do more than just redistribute wealth, I want us to redistribute power and opportunity to make society fairer.
And I want to put justice and working with others at the heart of a new foreign policy.

How? Vague aspirations don't do much for me.

Peter Hain
At the beginning of the campaign (which was well before it was announced), my inclination was towards Peter Hain. While he has not single-handedly solved the Northern Ireland question, he successfully played his significant role. While I think he has captured the mood of the party about the relationship to the leadership, I have a feeling that he is 'talking left' and that the position he takes might be transitory.

Mr Hain’s manifesto is also full of good intentions but has nothing that I can see against which I could judge his performance. His manifesto runs:

making the whole NPF process far more transparent, as well tackling the perception that the NPF simply acts as ‘rubber stamp’ by allowing it to consider more alternate policy positions.

One question – how? This question comes up again and again as I read his manifesto and I’m afraid I’m not convinced.

Hazel Blears
I don't think it'll come as a shock to anyone to say that I am not enamoured of Tony Blair. He has been Labour's most successful leader, winning three consecutive general elections and bringing through some fantastic policies, not least of which is the minimum wage. Hazel, although personable (I chatted to her for a bit after a meeting at LSE), is too close to Mr Blair in policy terms. As I said, I don't think this is necessarily about policy. Hazel is also close in terms of presentation. She has talked about the battle bus which is jolly, good fun for hacks and gives a nice image for the headline news. That, however, will not rebuild the party nor allow policies, relevant to people on the ground, to flow upwards. Moreover, I feel that Hazel becoming deputy leader would legitimise her as party chair, a position in which she has been less than successful. I also think her idea of a minister for manifesto delivery (read: minister without portfolio) is a bad idea. Every minister should be delivering their brief in line with the party's manifesto. The manifesto is not an exhaustive document, and so there can be both renewal and reformulation of policy in power through consultation with the Labour family or a new manifesto to stand on for a new election¹.

I will be casting both my party and union (Unite/Amicus) in the following order:

Hazel Blears 6
Hilary Benn 4
Jon Cruddas 1
Peter Hain 5
Harriet Harman 2
Alan Johnson 3

A few final thoughts
I have had leaflets through the door from all the candidates. It would have been preferable, I think, if they could have sent them out in one envelope to all members. As I understand it, some candidates have had difficult getting easy access to some membership lists. It would also have saved paper and money.

The debate around the deputy leadership has been good. I hope that Labour can carry on debating in a civilised and responsive manner, recognising that this attracts people. It is possible to have a genuine discussion within an agreed or accepted framework.

xD.

DISCLAIMER: this post was written over three days and on four different machines. If it is incoherent, inconsistent or riddled with errors, I'd appreciate it if you could let me know.

1 - I'll come back to this in the future when I've had time to think about it, but I think a 4- or 5- year term is too long.