Sarah Tether to stand down

I composed the following posting for Facebook on learning that Sarah Tether, Liberal Democrat MP for Brent, was to stand down as an MP.

I consider it likely that the political reality of managing a nation state involves interfacing with huge numbers of powerful vested interests, and to achieve anything requires forming alliances with organisations one might personally find distasteful. I have little doubt not only that the issue is the same the world over, but also that one's own moral purity could be preserved only under a highly authoritarian regime, assuming, of course, that one's moral principles aligned with that regime. The part I am not so keen on is that UK government ministers are required to pretend that they like the decisions that are taken in their name. I should rather they were honest, told it like it is, and then MPs such as Sarah Tether, and formerly Estelle Morris and Claire Short, would not be required to say things that we know they don't believe.

Against Western Military Involvement in Syria

Pouring petrol onto a fire tends to make matters worse, and also risks burning those who do the pouring. In terms of the likely consequences, in the history of bad ideas, Western military involvement with the civil war in Syria, however well-intentioned, would be very high up in the charts.

It is, of course, possible that, as with any war, there are vested interests, like crows around a battlefield, eager for the financial rewards of a military conflict.

It is the job of military leaders to think about military involvement in any situation (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq), whereas there can only be political resolutions (Northern Ireland, South Africa). Without a political resolution, there is no resolution: the First World War begat the Second World War begat the Cold War, usw.

Military spokespeople tend to talk earnestly about ‘surgical strikes’. Yet In Afghanistan there have been many civilian causalities, as well as so-called ‘friendly-fire’ incidents. I suspect that the explosions in Baghdad that we watched on television at the start of the Bush (junior) administration military adventure in Iraq, however well-targeted, killed many people who themselves had been victims of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Explosions do not discriminate who they kill – best not to use them. And besides, soldiers are people, too. Just because they have got caught up, some of them probably fairly arbitrarily, on one side or the other, does not mean that they deserve to die violently.

I may be quite wrong, but I suspect that some of the Syrian anti-government soldiers are not polite, liberal-minded people fighting because the Syrian government is a jolly rotten lot. I suspect that a proportion of the anti-government soldiers are motivated by an ideology that is as implacably opposed to western liberality as it is to the current Syrian regime. In supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Russian ‘occupation’ in the 1980s, the CIA inadvertently spawned the subsequent wave of international terrorism through which we are still living. Giving military assistance to such people sounds like a seriously bad idea.

I am as terrified of weapons of mass destruction as anyone else. However, I believe that Western politicians are responding with their hearts not their heads about the suspected / likely use of chemical weapons in Syria. 

Although it goes against the grain for many people, non-interference by the West could be the best course of action. Western electorates generally appear to support the idea that almost any action carried out by Western states must be experienced as desirable and beneficial for the people on whom it is inflicted. I suspect that the Islamic world, post-colonial Africa, and parts of Asia think somewhat differently.

If the West wishes to do something constructive, then giving significant humanitarian aid, both for the direct benefit of the casualties in the conflict, and also to the neighbouring countries to accommodate the huge number of Syrian refugees, would be a good start. At the diplomatic level, trying harder to build bridges with the Putin regime in Russia (with which the Assad regime in Syria has some kind of ongoing relationship), and trying even harder to broker a rapprochement between Israel and a Palestinian state, could, in the long-term, be of much greater benefit to the people of Syria and of countries surrounding Syria, than simply firing missiles into Damascus.

Reform of the House of Lords

The first, and most obvious thing to admit is that reform of the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the UK parliament, is not the highest of priorities for anyone much at present, with the exception of Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats. In these economically straitened times there are more pressing issues. Perhaps the constitutional issue of Scottish independence is more deserving of centre stage.
However, even though not pressing, the House of Lords does still require reformation, and if not now, then when? The chamber is populated mostly by 92 hereditary peers, 26 Lords Spiritual and a large number of political appointees. Many of the hereditary peers were cleared out some years ago by the Blair government..It would be very hard to assert that the 786 peers who currently make up the House of Lords are a representative sample of the UK population. A majority of the lords passed middle age quite a few summers ago. There are too few (181) women, too few black and Asian people, and too few people with disabilities. I am happy to support reform of the House of Lords.
The popular solution to the objection that the House is unrepresentative is to suggest that membership should be by popular election - either 80% or 100% of members being elected. However, I see little value in replicating the process of electing members of the House of Commons. Instead, my preference would be for an all-appointed House, made up of every facet of British life. So there would be representatives from:

1. trades unions (TUC)
2. the employer's federation (CBI)
3. BBC radio
4. commercial radio
5. BBC television 
6. commercial television
7. the film industry
8. the live music and recorded music industries
9. the theatre 
10. the visual arts
11. the Consumers' Association
12. the construction industry
13. the road transport industry
14. the rail industry 
15. the airline industry
16. the airports 
17. the sea ports
18. the coast guard
19. the police 
20. the fire and rescue service
21. the ambulance service
22. the British Army
23. the Royal Navy
24. the Royal Air Force
25. military intelligence
26. the Anglican Church 
27. the Roman Catholic Church (this might require a change in Canon Law)
28. the Greek Orthodox Church
29. the Methodist Church
30. Jehovah's Witnesseses
31. the Salvation Army
32. the Baptist Church
33. the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
34. the Unitarian Church
35. the Humanist Association
36. an Orthodox Jew
37. a Reformed Jew
38. a Sunni Muslim
39. a Shia Muslim
40. a Hindu
41. a Jain
42. a Buddhist
43. a pagan
44. every significant ethnic group in the country, including Roma people;
45. Russell Group universities
46. Million + universities
47. FE colleges
48. sixth form colleges 
49. secondary schools
50. primary schools
51. teachers' unions
52. headteachers
53. hospitals
54. the British Medical Association
55. nurses and midwives
56. dentists 
57. chiropodists;
58. social work
59. probation
60. prison service
61. the charitable sector
62. volunteer organisations
63. the National Trust
64. animal protection organisations
65. conservation organisations (such as CPRE)
66. political parties across the political spectrum, including the far right and far left
67. London
68. English Midlands
69. North East England
70. North West England
71. South East England
72. South West England
73. Southern England
    
74. Northern Ireland 
75. Highland Scotland
76. Lowland Scotland
77. Wales
78. the EU
79. the US
80. the BRIC countries
81. the Commonwealth
82. young people
83. pensioners

The purpose of this rainbow of representation would be to ensure that any significant legislation could be exposed to scrutiny by every group that has any kind of interest in it, and that the views expressed would receive a formal public platform. Whilst I have lobbied MPs (members of the House of Commons) on several occasions, I have never seen the point in contacting a member of the House of Lords. My proposal would mean that everyone in the country would have someone to contact about any legislative issue. I believe that such a House would command respect across the UK. However, the politicians in the House of Commons, when it comes to choosing how to reform the House of Lords, will, no doubt, simply plump for popular elections, as they always do, claiming that "it's more democratic". Does SMS text voting for one's preferred celebrity constitute high quality democracy? After the Second World War, Winston Churchill, hardly a bastion of socialist values, was instrumental in enhancing the quality of democracy in North Africa by promoting the creation of trades unions. Organisations (such as a trades union) give ordinary people a voice.
What would the reformed House be called? How about the House of Representatives?

Sunday thoughts

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, head of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland, said in a recent interview for BBC1's Sunday Politics in Scotland, that it is "immoral" how the less well-off had been made to "suffer" for the failings in the financial services sector.The cardinal's somewhat intemperate language would suggest that he considers issues in terms of the absolutes of good and bad, rather than in more nuanced shades and tones. He fails to recognise that the ethics of the current UK administration continue to remain validly self-consistent, best characterised by the phrase 'rich people looking after rich people'. I find myself in agreement with the cardinal's sentiment. In my ethical framework it is not okay that the welfare state is, in part, being dismantled. To add insult to injury, the abrading is happening in order to pay for the problems created by a sector that has no need for the welfare state. Let the banking and financial sector pay for its own mistakes. In my political analysis, the UK economy is far too dependent on the City of London-based financial sector. I should much rather the UK economy were based on skilled and high-tech manufacturing, but with an emphasis on reducing consumption. If there were economic austerity to be faced by ordinary people, let it be because the economy of the UK were being rebalanced away from financial services towards sustainable ways of living.

The same cardinal, who is well-known for speaking out on controversial issues, recently lambasted the UK government for wishing to provide a legal definition of marriage. The cardinal believes that only the Christian church ought to be allowed to define marriage. A major part of the problem is that the Roman Catholic church, amongst several, has a conservative and extremely outdated view of what constitutes an appropriate relationship, whereas the British public, along with populations across the economically developed world, have been rejecting en masse practices that belong (at best) to a different era. By seeking to bring up to date the concept and practices of marriage, the UK government is patently seeking to revive its popularity. Therefore, it seems to me, this is an issue of competence. I defend the assertion by the UK parliament of its right to determine issues that apply to people across the country. I also defend the right of the Roman Catholic church to determine its own attitude towards marriage.If the Roman Catholic church does not wish to embrace the practice of marrying same-sex couples, it does not seem necessary to force them to do so. Gay couples can choose to marry in a civil ceremony (and I'm not sure how this would differ from a civil partnership) or in a church of another denomination. I am certain that the Religious Society of Friends will be enthusiastic to hold gay weddings for Quakers.

It is looking increasingly likely that, in due course, the Anglican church will split in two over issues of sexuality. Gene Robinson's enthronement in a see of the Episcopal Church in the US exposed attitudes in the worldwide Anglican Church that appear indistinguishable from homophobia. In an effort to keep the Anglican communion in one piece, Archbishop Rowan Williams, head of the Anglican Church, introduced a covenant to which each of the Anglican national churches was expected to sign up. However, the Church of England refused to sign it on the basis of its exclusion of gay clergy. It is far from clear to me why both the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches are so willing to see themselves portrayed as irretrievably homophobic.Recently, the Catholic Education Society contact the Roman Catholic schools in the UK, inviting them to use in school assemblies material concerning the Roman Catholic church's objection to gay marriage, and urging the schools to encourage their pupils to sign an on-line petition against gay marriage. It is not hard to imagine the effect this may have on young people who feel uncertain or uneasy about their emergent sexuality.

The Church of England is feeling challenged about the likely reduction in the number of its bishops who sit by right in the House of Lords (the upper chamber of the UK parliament). That the bishops are present at all owes itself to the fact that the Church of England is the established church of England - despite the fact that the House of Lords scrutinises legislation that applies variously or severally to the four countries of the UK. On the face of it, this sounds like an excellent reason for removing all of the bishops from the House of Lords. However, I believe that there is a place for senior representatives of each of the major religions and Christian denominations, including the churches in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As a scrutinising body, the work of the House of Lords would be enhanced by having the views of as many as possible of the constituent bodies that make up the complex organism that is the UK

Spring 2012 UK Budget - the last straw

I have cancelled my e-mails from the LibDems. I shall no longer deliver LibDem leaflets. This (by which I mean how the coalition govermnent has been behaving) is not merely different, it is in many respects the opposiite of what I voted for.

I confess: I voted for wealth redistribution, but from the likes of bankers with their generous salaries and eye-watering bonueses to families struggling to survive on minimum wage incomes or no income at all; not from poor people for whose meagre expenditure a 20% VAT on most goods is punitive; and from pensioners who are now being faced with a reduction in their tax allowance, to the richest peope whose top rate of income tax is being reduced from 50% to 45%, and who typically employ accountants in order to avoid paying tax.

I voted for public spending: on hospitals, nurseries, schools, colleges, universities, research and development, roads, railways, affordable housing.and a cleaner environment; not on futile wars overseas, or on a high prestige sports jamboree in London, or a high profile, high prestige, high cost, high speed railway line to carry rich people from their country homes in the Midlands to their fat-cat jobs in the City of London.

I voted for the proper funding of the National Health Service (NHS), and for a better system of care in the community for people with dementia / mental health issues. Instead, the Coalition government has set up mechanisms for privatising the NHS, and planned to create meaningless competition where there need be none.

I voted for access to higher education unfettered by tution fees. Instead, many universities will be charging tuition fees of GBP 9,000 p.a., so that students will leave university up to GBP 30,000 in debt.

I voted for job creation, so that there would not be another lost generation as there was under Margaret Thatcher. Instead, the unemployment figures in the UK are higher than ever, and youth unemployment has rocketed. Apprenticeships have been replaced by internships.

I voted for green safe energy, accompanied by a promise to block any attempt to return to nuclear power. Instead, EDF have been given the green light to start planning new nuclear power stations even before the reactors at Fukushima have fully cooled.

I voted for clean politics, not the grubby world of "donations for dinner", and the sordid cash for influence being offered by the (now former) Conservative Party Treasurer. Whilst it may not be fair to lay this charge at the feet of the Libdems, it is the LibDems who keep in power those for whom the charge is relevant.

I saw how coalition governments work in other countries, and thought that it would be the same in the UK: only goverment that needs to happen hapepns. I was willing, even excited, to give coalition politics the benefit of the doubt. However, the LibDems have shown themselves to be utterly complicit with the Conservative Party political agenda. How can I, or anyone, distinguish between the two parties in the coalition? The situation resembles that of the pigs at the end of George Orwell's novel 1984, who became indistinguishable from the farmer they overthrew.

Tories announce bad ideas

Yesterday, just ahead of the Conservative Party Annual Conference, Eric Pickles announced that £250 million had been found to enable local councils to re-instate weekly refuse collections. This is a terrible idea. Weekly bin collections encourage people to throw away things that could be recycled.Our bin is emptied two or three times each year, simply because we re-use or recycle everything else.It is not difficult, although clearly the commitment to recycle is beyond many people.

Also yesterday, Philip Hammond, Minister for Transport, announced an intention to raise speed limits on motorways to 80 mph. This is a bad idea not only because the number of accidents will increase and the intensity of the damage to life, limb and vehicles, but also because petrol consumption will worsen, thus increasing CO2 emissions.

Nation, identity and government

Surely the term 'nation' is used for mythological purposes. The term is tied up with a sense of identity. It invites citizens to identify with, and to strengthen their sense of belonging. The mythology points towards (apparent) genetic and cultural similarity, and so is often used to distance "people who are not like us", whether brown-skinned versus white-skinned, culturally Christian versus culturally Muslim, and even genetically-Norse versus genetically Saxon (here in the North East of England there is a strong desire to claim Viking genes, thus differentiating people in the North East from people in southern England). I say that it is a myth because it represents a story that I choose. I could choose a different story. An obvious example of this mythologising is the frequently-used term "this island nation" used by many British people to differentiate themselves from people of continental Europe, and to disclaim the validity of 'supranational' government from Strasbourg / Brussels. A second example is the US attempt to forge one nation out of disparate peoples, that is, to invite them to believe that they are one people.

The myth of the nation is powerful because it helps to determine perceived political legitimacy. In Belgium the myth of a Belgian nation appears to be stretched near to breaking point. The myth of a Macedonian nation straddling Greece and Macedonia terrifies the Greek government. The myth of a Kurdish nation has been perpetually squashed by Turkey, Iraq and Russia.

I believe that the term 'nation' is also increasingly in crisis because of the eagerness of many people to embrace dual (multiple) identities: African American, Asian British, Polish British, French Muslim, Galician Spanish (there appears to be a Celtic identity seeking to create unity between Galicia, Brittany, Cornwall, Wales and Ireland).

Climate change mitigation versus democracy?

Following a broadcast on the BBC Radio 4 Analysis programme (20:30 Monday 24 May 2010) presented by Justin Rowlatt (the BBC's 'Ethical Man'), I posted the following text on the BBC's Ethical Man weblog:

"I listened to the radio programme with much anticipation. I was pleased that the issue was taken seriously in terms both of the science and the politics. There were various aspects with which I variously wholeheartedly agreed or disagreed. Three aspects, however, that I considered to be very weak were: 1) democracy is not one thing; democracy means different things to different people in different places; the UK has a system of representative democracy (hence no capital punishment despite the untested preference of the electorate). 2) Much of what is already taking place (erection of wind turbines, replacement of incandescent light bulbs, new hybrid and electric vehicles) is happening between government and industry, not by popular choice at the retail level (we will buy whatever is available)- this is about the relationship between government and corporations in which the electorate never get any say anyway. 3) Too often "the expressed will of the people" has more to do with the relationship between government and the popular press - were the red-tops to champion major lifestyle changes to ameliorate climate change, their readership would almost inevitably follow."

I wish to develop these ideas further, although this weblog is not the place where I intend to leave the text. The issues belong on my Green website.

The radio programme is reported to be currently available on the BBC iPlayer.

1. Democracy under threat?
The term 'democratic' seems to be used frequently in a wide variety of circumstances to indicate that something is politically good in some way. It seems obvious to most people who choose to live in economically-developed western countries that even the most imperfect of democracies are superior, say, to the society portrayed by George Orwell in 1984. If nothing else, this points to democracies that fall short of some notional democractic ideal. A democracy probably requires regular, popular elections (as distinct from elections by a small minority) and a voting system that delivers an outcome readily acceptable to the electorate. In the US it is considered democratic to vote for a variety of public officials beyond politicians, e.g. police chiefs. In the UK such an election is viewed with suspicion, believing that public officials should be impartial. In the UK, the rights of trades unions to require their members to withdraw their labour are enshrined in law - trades unions being seen as an example of dispersed democracy. Winston Churchill saw the dispersal of democracy amongst the institutions of a country as a process of democratisation. It is not clear to me what aspects and features of democracy would have to be suspended to effect a political programme to counter AGW (anthropogenic global warming). It is, however, clear to me that to suspend all that we call democracy would so fundamentally change the nature and fabric of contemporary UK society that inentional suspension would be beyond contemplation. More realistically, the suspension of certain aspects of the democratic political process could happen, as it did during the second world war. This does not have to be a slippery slope towards totalitarianism.

UK General Election 2010: 27 days to go

I was out yesterday evening delivering LibDem leaflets through local letterboxes. I wonder if people really read the leaflets. I know that they moan about feeling ignored if they don't receive leaflets. "I shan't vote for X because they didn't bother to canvas my vote." I do look at the leaflets I deliver, but rarely consider them of interest. They are usually full of platitudes, with attention being given to knocking one or other rival parties / rival party leaders / rival candidates.

I live in a constituency where the LibDems are contending with Labour who are long-standing incumbents. The City of Durham constituency, in the heart of a former heavy industry region, and until recently one of Labour's safest seats, and at which the Conservative candidate used to poll the second largest number of votes, has gradually become a marginal seat at which the Conservative candidate now risks losing their deposit. The presence of Durham University means that there are undoubtedly some people who hold Liberal Democrat values. However, there is no way on Earth that half the voters are Liberal Democrats at heart. The only way in which the LibDems can hope to have their candidate elected is to persuade would-be Conservative voters to vote LibDem instead. This is done by emphasising that the Conservative candidate has no chance of winning, and that the best way to avoid returning the Labour candidate, the incumbent MP, to Westminster, is to vote LibDem. Would this not be a dishonest distortion of the political complexion of the constituency? For in reality the constituency is about 50% Labour, 25% LibDem and 25% Conservative. Surely the votes cast should reflect these proportions? However, underlying the attempt at distortion is the antiquated, unsophisticated, first-past-the-post voting system. Other elected governmental bodies in the UK use a form of proportional representation to elect their representatives, resulting in a more honest picture of the political complexion of the electorate. I should much prefer an immediate switch to a voting system that is better than that which encourages local parties and voters into a kind of dishonesty. I am enthusiastic to be part of the democratic process, even if it is merely delivering leaflets, but I am not comfortable being part of a system that attempts to persuade people who hold Conservative values to vote LibDem simply to prevent the Labour candidate from winning. My political philosophy, although most closely expressed in party political terms by the Liberal Democrats, is still much closer to that of the Labour Party than that of the Conservative Party.

UK General Election 2010: 28 days to go

One of the less seemly aspects about the run-up to a general election is that politicians of one or other persuasion will offer tempting words that seem to contradict what they have spent the previous 4 or 5 years asserting. Whilst I can remember back into the 1970s talking enthusiastically about exchanging the still-current unrepresentative first-past-the-post system voting system for some form of proportional representation, the issue remains a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy. However, there is a significant credibility gap when Johnny-come-lately Labour Party politicians (such as Ben Bradshaw on last night's edition of BBC 2's Newsnight programme) bob their heads above the parapet and state that they too have long been staunchly supportive of proportional representation. There is an equally yawning credibility gap when Conservative politicians propose wacky populist ideas such as the direct petitioning of parliament for debate, as though they, the Conservative Party, have forever championed the wishes and rights of poor and ordinary people.

Although the attention being given to whether National Insurance tax (paid by employers as well as employees, as distinct from income tax which is paid only by employees) should be raised feels like phoney sparring, the issue has drawn out into the open the Conservative sympathy towards business leaders: should the cost of repairing the economy be borne by the little people, in the form of reduced public services, or shared between the people and business, in the form of a tax? Public engagement in the election will begin in earnest when the politicians begin talking about migrant workers, immigration and the EU. I regret that the somewhat nationalistic prejudices (about which they feel proud) and mildly xenophobic attitudes (which they deny, but cannot refute) of many white British people makes it difficult for them to listen to fact, reason and rationality. Were the Conservative Party to propose strict limitations on 'foreigners' taking work in the UK, I believe that the Conservatives would easily win an outright majority. Were the Conservatives also to have the courage of their deep-seated convictions and offer the electorate the tantalising possibility of somehow distancing the UK from the EU, the Conservatives would win a landslide victory. I do not understand the Liberal Democrat enthusiasm for a referendum on Britain's engagement with continental Europe - turkey's voting for Christmas is a phrase that comes to mind. I believe that these are the issues that many people would prefer the electioneering politicians to be addressing.

UK General Election 2010: 29 days to go

It is with a sense of relief that I greeted yesterday's announcement by Gordon Brown about the date of the next UK general election. The coming four weeks will be reminiscent of that passage in George Orwell's 1984 when Winston Smith and his colleagues are frantically busy with Party activity. In contrast to the UK system of government, elections are held on a regular, cyclic basis in France and the US. I wonder what things would be like were the UK to hold general elections on a regular, say, five year cycle.

Although I am not a member of a political party, I have a deep prejudice towards participatory democracy. Accordingly I am a volunteer, posting political leaflets through letterboxes in some of the streets close to my house.

I find it interesting how I have constructed my voting preference:
1. partly on how I have voted in the past (a kind of inertia - I am the opposite of a floating voter);
2. partly on a comparison between my political values and those of party policies (I have already visited Party websites and downloaded/read some of their policy statements);
3. partly on who I see supporting each party (am I ever likely to vote for a party that draws its support from men who vie with Yakuza to cover themselves in body art?);
4. and partly on how 'attractive' I find the political leaders and their team (on this basis, I should prefer to have voted for Ted Heath over Margaret Thatcher; for Michael Foot over Tony Blair; Tony Blair over Gordon Brown; and Paddy Ashdown over Charles Kennedy or Nick Clegg). Were I given the choice, I should rather vote for Barack Obama, who I consider to belong to a class above most British politicians.

My Predictions
The Labour vote will reduce by 5% (77 seats) some votes going to the Liberal Democrats, some votes going to the UKIP/BNP, some votes going to the Conservatives, and some Labour voters choosing not to vote. This desertion will be more pronounced in the Home Counties, Midlands and East Anglia, where there will be the greatest number of seats changing from Labour to Conservative. In the north of England the Labour vote will decline, although by not as much, and it will have less impact on the seats held. Total number of seats: 272

The Conservative vote will increase by 5% (79 seats), some votes coming from Labour, some from the Liberal Democrats, and the rest coming from people who did not vote at the 2005 general election. The Conservatives will lose some votes to UKIP/BNP. The greatest number of newly-won Conservative seats will come from London, the Home Counties and the Midlands. Total number of seats: 289

The Liberal Democrats will neither gain nor lose total votes, being a beneficiary of deserting votes from Labour, but losing votes to the Conservatives. However, as a result they will lose four marginal seats. Total number of seats: 58

UKIP will do well in the south of England, and the BNP will do well in London, possibly East Anglia and parts of the north of England, but will not have any seats in the House of Commons.

The Scottish Nationalists will gain some votes from Labour, but lose some to the Conservatives. The situation in Scotland will remain mostly unchanged.

Plaid Cymru will lose votes to the Conservatives. On the other hand, if they can gain some votes from Labour, the Labour marginal at Arfon might give them a further seat at Westminster (from 2 to 3)

The situation in Northern Ireland will remain largely unchanged. Most of their MPs will vote with the Conservatives, but this will be insufficient for the Conservatives to secure a working majority.

Result: a 'hung parliament' at Westminster. A coalition government will not be formed. Instead, the Conservatives will enter a working agreement with the Liberal Democrats (as happened with the former Lib-Lab pact). There will be a further general election in March 2011.

Journalism 1: fleas on the back of democracy

It can be argued, and often is, that free and open journalism is a key function for the effective working of a democracy. News of national and international political and economic affairs is presented by journalists as a truth lieing somewhere between contextualised fact and informed opinion.

It is a disappointment, therefore, the underwhelmingly poor quality of popular (as distinct from specialist) journalism in the UK makes it easy to assess as very poor value - a high price to be paid in public attention (as well as the invasion of privacy) for such insubstantial fare. The focus on sport, celebrity, royalty, reality television shows and soap operas is bad enough. However, the self-satisfied - sometimes self-congratulatory , insular - sometimes jingoistic, ill-educated - sometimes mocking the mre highly educated, illiberal - sometimes sneering at those who try to understand people who transgress social norms, grub dollopped into porcelain and melamine dishes alike, makes it all-too-clear why "Support our Boys" and "Help for Heroes" have become national slogans regardless of the immorality, the geopolitical stupidity, and the financial burden of stationing trained killers and their support staff in a far away country called Afghanistan.

Prize-winning US journalist, writer and philosopher, on the other hand, "held no assumption of news and truth being synonymous. For him the “function of news is to signalize an event, the function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts, to set them in relation with each other, and make a picture of reality on which men can act.” A journalist’s version of the truth is subjective and limited to how he constructs his reality. The news, therefore, is “imperfectly recorded” and too fragile to bear the charge as “an organ of direct democracy.”

'Public confidence' is a euphemism for the opinion of journalists, fat cat editors, advertisers, and phalanxes of well-funded lobbyists. Public confidence in science and scientists is not a direct response to scientific findings, but is directed by journalists / lobbyists.

My comments above are (reworked Twitter) responses to the following Twitter posting that refers to a BBC so-called-news item: "Does the world of climate science need a radical rethink? Susan Watts reports on IPCC blunders: http://tiny.cc/WuwiS "

The entire article appears to me to be scurrilous, intending to create and foment the doubt it purports to report. My 'evidence' is an extended interview given by Sir David King and broadcast on Night Waves, BBC Radio 3, on the evening of Tuesday 26 January 2010. Here is the programme blurb:

"As part of the BBC Year of Science, Radio 3's Night Waves is running a special series of extended interviews with leading scientists from Britain and the rest of the world. Each month a complete 45 minute edition will be dedicated to a single scientific figure talking to him or her about their research specialism, their wider scientific views, their personal background and their involvement with broader cultural and political questions.

"In the first interview Anne McElvoy talks to David King, the UK government's chief scientific officer from 2000 to 2007 - a job which put him at the heart of one of the burning issues of our time: the relationship between scientists, the government and the general public. On his watch David King faced foot and mouth, the GM foods debate, the ratification of the Kyoto protocol and the Stern Report.

"South African born and a physical chemist by training, David King arguably did more than any other scientist to put the issue of Climate Change onto the UK's public and political map. Anne gauges his opinions on the failure of the Copenhagen summit and asks about the nature of scientific orthodoxy after the furore over the climate change emails from the University of East Anglia, where he used to work.

"And what does he think about the status of scientific knowledge in the political process, an issue brought sharply into focus by the recent resignation of David Nutt, the chairman of the government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs?

"David King is a self confessed optimist, his personal style is that of the quietly spoken diplomat but he is no stranger to controversy. He publicly criticised the Bush administration over its environmental policies and has himself been declared an embarrassment by those with different opinions over climate change."

I was fascinated to listen to the interview. I studied the history and philosophy of science at university, and still often read popular science and science history books. Therefore it was good to hear a scientist talking meaningfully about the business of doing science, the philosophy behind and theory of the scientific method, and what it was like to interface with politicians (and journalists) who had little understanding of, and even less sympathy for, the on-the-ground realities of science.

In stark contrast to my comfort with the feet-on-the-ground reasonableness of what David King had to say, I experienced the interviewer, Executive Editor of the (London) Evening Standard, Anne McElvoy, to be extremely irritating in the perpetual slant of her questions. I was unclear whether she had a specific agenda (probably partly to do with David Nutt's recent falling out with the government, but also to assert the role of journalists in the debate about climate change); was trying repeatedly to goad him (which succeeded on several occasions, and I also noted that the interview simply stopped - it did not come to an end), or was just plain ignorant (both meanings of the word). I dislike it when an interviewer is not actually interested in the answer given by the interviewee.

In one section of the interview, David King gave a clear message, supported by clear examples, that the pressure from climate change skeptics is extremely well organised, extremely well funded, and has an unswerving aim of derailing political attempts to limit climate change. There is no respect in which it would be possible to suggest that the man is paranoid. His observations, explanations and arguments were persuasive beyond assailability - which is why I wondered if the journalist was simply stupid (which she cannot possibly be) when she refused to acknowledge the absurdity of some of the positions she took.

All that said, the interview was well worth listening to, and I am disappointed that it is not available online. In contrast, Susan Watts' piece (linked above) is mere scurrilous junk!

War: skillful tactic or utter disaster?

War destroys. War destroys people, communities, culture and infrastructure. War only ever destroys. It is the process of rebuilding that picks up the pieces and rebuilds. Warfare always represents failure.

In her fascinating article, Diana Francis debunks the popular myth that war can be for good.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/diana-francis/war-justifiable-or-simply-catastrophic

If death and destruction are to be reduced, warfare must stop. No exceptions. No excuses.
...

Eric Blair: 25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950

From what I have read about him, Eric Blair was not an easy person to get along with, and enjoyed challenging the status quo. He had strongly-held political opinions and was reluctant to be silenced. He resigned from his job with the BBC because he opposed censorship. His family supported the British establishment, but he came to oppose it. Blair was a proponent of a federal socialist Europe, a position outlined in his 1947 essay Toward European Unity. He was left-wing in his politics, but was also highly critical of the left. He hated anything politically authoritarian, which is how he came to write Nineteen Eighty Four. In Why I Write (1946) he wrote "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."

Misdirection

I remember with some affection an old Quaker man named Bill. We served together on a committee, and talked on many occasions. In particular, I have never forgotten him telling me that for the first forty years of his life his mind was incredibly active, "like a steam train", but then he slowed down - as though he had run out of steam. He died some years ago, I think in his 80s, having been unwell for a short time. He died because he was old and tired, and his body found a way for him to let go. The focus of attention in the talk around his death, however, was directed towards the possibly-hospital-acquired-infection that killed him. Such talk was innocent, and understandable in the context of someone precious whose presence was missed.

An online article published on the BBC news website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8448000/8448807.stm
discusses a recently published report of research undertaken concerning the impact of grey squirrels on UK bird populations. The premise for the research was that various rarer species of bird are in decline because of predation by grey squirrels. The research, however, demonstrated that despite both red and grey squirrels helping themselves to the occasional nest egg, and snacking on unfortunate fledgelings, there is little if any evidence even to suggest, never mind show, that grey squirrels adversely affect any species of bird. Interestingly, the two bird species that suffer the greatest squirrel (both red and grey) predation are blackbirds and collared doves. Interesting, because those are the two bird species that are most in evidence in the village where I live, and there are letters in the local newspaper bemoaning the amount of noise made by the collared doves. It seems that, in line with the national population of collared doves, the number of local collared doves has increased. Significantly, this increase has been at a time when my sightings of grey squirrels, which were barely in evidence at all in Durham when I arrived in 1976, have become more frequent. It is not grey squirrels that are the predation threat to local avian life, it is domestic cats (including my own). Other research some years ago showed that domestic cat populations represent a significant threat to local populations of garden birds.

So why was this research on the impact of grey squirrels considered necessary? Supported by Charles Windsor, an outspoken voice for conservatism and rural autonomy, there have for a number of years been loud calls for the slaughter of grey squirrels 'to protect populations of indigenous red squirrels'. I remember in my childhood there were stories about the invasive North American grey squirrel driving Tufty to the edge of extinction. There was anecdotal evidence that grey squirrels, being larger, would beat up the red squirrels. (Would this have anything to do with the Second World War?) Squirrels fight, whether red or grey; I know because I have watched them. However, again, research undertaken thirty years ago showed that the decline in red squirrel populations tended to precede contact between the two populations: where Tufty had moved out leaving an ecological vacuum, the grey squirrel moved in. The anti-grey squirrel lobby countered with evidence showing that the red squirrel has no immunity to a virus (the parapox virus) to which the grey squirrel is immune. However, because the two squirrel populations have little contact, it is not principally the virus that has the red squirrel population in decline.

The main reason for the steady decline in the number of red squirrels in the British Isles is habitat degradation: the impact of people, industry and agricultural practices. Whilst grey squirrels are happy to live in Regent's Park, London, red squirrels cannot cope with people. Every area of the UK where red squirrel populations are hanging on is an area with a low human population density - this can been most clearly seen in Scotland where there are red squirrel populations either side of the Forth-Clyde corridor. There are few red squirrels in England.

It may be too late to preserve any natural populations of red squirrels in England. Their only chance may be managed reserves from which all environmental pressures have been removed. However, Tufty's fate is like that of the caged canary taken down a coal mine. The red squirrel lives or dies according to the ecological appropriateness of their habitat. The industrialisation of agriculture, including the use of herbicides, pesticides and genetically-modified crops; the 'management' of forests; the encroachment of industrial estates, trading estates and housing estates; the transformation of wildernesses into playgrounds for quad-biking, paint-balling, shooting hand-reared game birds (which seems all-pervasive around Durham): have together devoured the barely-touched and the out-of-the-way places. Wilderness has become urban hinterland, suburb, or an agribusiness resource. That is why the red squirrel has all-but-vanished from England. Yet, rather than challenge our own understanding of British society, and give thought to how it could and should be, well-resourced vested interest groups instead shout noisily about the cast of usual suspects, once again directing our attention to the grey squirrel.

Nationhood (2): thoughts out loud

This posting is an edited version of a timed and dated journal entry written in Caffe Nero, Silver Street, Durham City UK. This version was first written on 17 July 2008, and has since been updated several times.

I want to look again at issues of nationality, not least because I am aware that some of my thoughts have moved on in response to attempting to resolve some cognitive dissonance on the matter.

(10 August 2008: it is not clear to me whether the people of South Ossetia simply wish not to be governed by Georgia, or if they wish to form their own independent government, or if they wish to form an independent government with the people of North Ossetia, or if they wish to be under Russian (military) protection.)

I believe that people should be free to govern themselves, to form their own government, and should not have to be subject to government by another people. Despite the apparent reported despotism of the Mugabe regime, I believe that the people of Zimbabwe (as Rhodesia, a former British colonial possession) should be free to govern themselves, as should the people of Algeria (a former French colonial possession), Burundi (a former Belgian colonial possession), Poland (a former Russian Soviet client state), Latvia (a state formerly occupied by the Soviet Union) and Tibet (occupied since 1960 by the People's Republic of China). What about Ireland? Scotland? Wales? Cornwall? Brittany? Flemish Belgium? Quebec? Lombardy? Greek Macedonia? Turkish Cyprus? Kurdistan? How is the geographical area of self-government to be determined? What about the European micro-states of Andorra? Monaco? Vatican City? San Marino? Lichtenstein? How self-governing are the Channel Isles (Jersey, Guernsey, Sark) and the Isle of Man? Where do micro-colonies fit in, such as Gibraltar? Ceuta?

Beyond consideration of geographical area, there is for me also uncertainty about what I mean by government. At a simple level, the Westminster government is sovereign. However, federal government in Washington DC is not legally competent over every aspect of legal process in the US. In Germany, the lande possess legal competence not shared by the federal government in Berlin. In the UK, the Westminster government devolved some of its power to the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies. Further, although under ultimate control by Westminster, city- and shire-based local authorities wield considerable power through their budgets, as do devolved institutions such as the National Health Service, the national rail network, and a plethora of quasi-non-governmental organisations. However, at an international level much of the legislation enacted by the UK government must conform with legislation enacted by, and directives from, the European Union; with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; with NATO; and with the United Nations. There are probably any number of international organisations about which I know little or nothing that have specific competence regarding areas of UK governance, and this is to ignore bilateral agreements and understandings, such as the recent military adventures undertaken by the US and UK in Iraq (seen, perhaps erroneously, by many people in the UK as the Westminster government acquiescing to the expectations of the US White House). Whilst pariah states (e.g. Burma and North Korea) and states under siege can run against the pack, at least for a period of time, states central to major world institutions, such as the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Japan either lead the world or else conform - mostly the latter. The exceptions seem to be the superpowers of the US and China, and formerly the Soviet Union, but even these states are under considerable international pressure to conform, as evidenced by the reluctant progress of the Bush administration to acknowledge the human contribution to global warming. So whilst there is a fiction of national sovereignty, there is also an actual dispersal of powers to international organisations. Significantly this de facto ceding of power is not to a world government, but largely to organisations competent in one realm, such as GATT, the World Bank, the IMF, NATO. The major exception to this is the United Nations. However, the UN achieves its authority only from the Assembly of national governments, not from some superior, independent organisation. The European Union, which is an attempt at pan-European government, uses a hybrid version with a combination of pooled national state authority, and trans-European democratic authority. Sadly, the popular democratic aspects of the EU are both weak and undermining of the enterprise. The UN, EU and NATO also make extensive use of experts.

A further international-scale blurring of the sovereignty of nation states is the power wielded by trans-national corporations in every field of finance, commerce and trade.

The foregoing also presupposes that national governments, as though by divine right, have always had sovereignty. A different reality is that they busily acquire power. In part, national governments have acquired authority in novel fields, such as the regulation of television (and thereby, in the UK, the opportunity to tax viewers) and radio communication (and thereby, in the UK, to sell bandwidth to cellphone companies). In part, national governments have acquired authority from other bodies: in (part-)nationalising some UK banks, the Westminster government has also bought itself an important voice in the UK banking industry. In part, national governments have acquired authority by removing the legal competence of autonomous bodies to regulate themselves. (The HPC [Health Professions Council, a UK government body], has recently regulated all psychologists in the UK, despite there being a pre-existing competent body. The HPC has now turned its attention to counsellors and psychotherapists, despite the BACP [British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy] having an effective accreditation scheme.)

To be continued ...

Shrinking U.S. Cities Find Splendor in Green

The article below is one of several I have seen recently along the same lines:

World Environment News - Some Shrinking U.S. Cities Find Splendor in Green - Planet Ark

I am aware that there are many millions of people, particularly in South America, Africa and parts of Asia, who would experience a vast improvement in their quality of life were they to be given the opportunity to live in these abandoned neighbourhoods. Is it ethically more sound to raze the houses to make green space, or to provide shelter for people who have none?

I am slowly but increasingly persuaded that no-one should be given the right to exclude other people from land that is not theirs: Israelis should have no right to exclude Palestinians from living in Israel; nor supporters of the British National Party [Front Nationale, Vlaams Blok/Belang] to prevent people with darker-coloured skin from living in western Europe. I guess that there are residents of Flint, Michigan, who would object to people from elsewhere in the world (such as refugees, asylum seekers and economic migrants) taking up residence in abandoned neighbourhoods.

A related, though separate, issue concerns social welfare. Were familes say, from Timbuktu, to relocate to Flint, Michigan, or to Pennywell, Sunderland, who would be responsible for their social welfare?

[To be continued ...]

Come and See

I wrote the following in comment to a review on Amazon.co.uk regarding the Russian movie by Elem Klimov called Idi i smotri (Come and See). I have posted the comment here because I wish to develop a few ideas from it.

"Whilst what you have written may well be true, fair and balanced, Klimov's movie is intended only as true - it is you who place on it the burden of being fair and balanced. Whilst some art clearly does attempt to achieve balance, I am not sure that a painting such as 'Guernica' would be improved were it to attempt a panoptic perspective. Maybe a BBC documentary about the Second World War in Byelorussia would feel more satisfactory as accurate reporting and fair analysis."

The US Presidential election

1. When I was in the US during August, it was already absolutely clear to me that John McCain would win the election.

2. Subsequent to my return home, the appointment of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate, whilst considered inexplicable from the perspective of European commentators, finally brought fully on board the rednecks, the gun lobby and the evangelicals, all of whom had viewed McCain with suspicion as being somewhat liberal. Whilst it still shocks me that there are Christian people in Britain who would have voted for McCain simply because of his Christian beliefs, I know that the same is much more intensely true in the US.

3. During August I saw John McCain start to change his presentation from being the obviously polite, considerate man that he is, to being a person with clear-cut, no-nonsense, straight-down the line answers to any and all questions. I watched the man transform his presentation from appealing pleasantly to conservative people to appealing to rednecks, pro-lifers and evangelicals. Had he been elected to the White House, it is not him about whom I would have felt concern, but all the lobbies to which he owed allegiance.

4. One of the catch-phrases in the movie Sliding Doors, and I think probably from Monty Python before that, is "No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition". The so-called credit crunch began in September. President Bush, and by implication, the Republicans in general are seen as having handled the US economy badly, whereas Bill Clinton is seen (perhaps fairly, perhaps not) as having handled the US economy remarkably well. I feel certain that Barack Obama has benefited from this perception without having earned that trust.

5. Prior to September, John McCain was doing well in the polls because of his military background. On the other hand, Barack Obama was seen as weak and flaky, as too understanding, as "nuanced". The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not viewed by people in the US as anything like the liability that they are seen by almost everyone in Europe. The credit crunch turned an important issue into a very minor issue.

6. When I was in the US, I was struck by how similar Barack Obama is to how Tony Blair was back in 1997. To many, Tony Blair turned out to be a Tory in Labour livery. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has a Senate track record of attempting to push through liberal welfare reforms. I believe that had Hillary Clinton been chosen as the Democratic Party nominee, she may well have won the election had the credit crunch not happened. I still rue the fact that she was not selected.

7. Since its much-celebrated birth, the United States has been a nation comprised almost entirely of immigrants from all over the world. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the people were the poor and dispossessed: displaced native Americans, slaves of African ethnicity, and peasants from Europe, from Asia and from Latin America. Having visited Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Florida and Chicago, I know that white-skinned people are a minority in the US, and will soon not even be the largest minority. White-skinned male patricians do not outnumber other groups in the US, yet this is the category of people from which the two political parties have typically selected their candidates. Martin Luther King's dream was 40 years ago. There is part of me that is appalled that "the world and her lovers" are rejoicing about the skin colour of the person elected to be the next US President. Is it really true that these times are still so benighted?

8. The excitement and razzmatazz around Obama has enthused many people, and raised expectations into geostationary orbit. I wonder how long he will be given before people realise that he is merely the Commander in Chief of the US military, and not Superman, Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Jesus Christ merged into one super-hero.

9. I hope and believe that the world is much safer for having a Democrat, rather than a Republican, White House.

10. Had I been able to vote at a Democratic primary, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton. Had I had a vote in the US Presidential election, I would, without a shadow of a doubt, have voted for Barack Obama.

Postscript (18 July 2009)

My overall, if no-longer well-informed, sense is that Barack Obama has done a stirling job during the first six months of his office. In comparison, the UK government under Gordon Brown appears to have stumbled from crisis to crisis in remorseless succession. Whilst Obama's administration inspires hope for the future, the UK is sinking ever deeper into the mire. I should find it much easier to be proud to be American than proud to be British.

European invasion of the Americas (1)

My two visits to the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian, Washington DC, prompted me to consider the ethics of the European invasion of the Americas from 1492 onwards. I have been journalling about this issue in detail on paper, but have been reluctant to date to commit any of my thoughts to publicly-accessible electronic form. However, having just read the article reproduced below, I thought that it would make a good start to the process of placing my thoughts about the issue in the public domain. The article is in Planet Ark, world environment news, which I believe to be a subsidiary of Reuters.

***

BRASILIA - Isolated native Indians in the Amazon forest of Brazil and Peru remain threatened by advancing loggers despite growing international attention to their plight, a senior Brazilian official said on Thursday.

"Pressure from Peruvian loggers continues, it's a concern," Marcio Meira, head of the government's Indian affairs agency, Funai, told the foreign press association in Brasilia.

Brazil's Acre state along the border with Peru is one of the world's last refuges for such groups, but increasing activity by wildcat miners and loggers puts them at risk.

Dramatic pictures of pigment-covered Indians from the region threatening the photographer's aircraft with bows and arrows were carried in May by media worldwide.

The Peruvian ambassador to Brazil subsequently told Meira his government was concerned about the issue and preparing measures, without detailing what these were.

Brazil has 26 confirmed native Indian tribes that live with little or no contact with the outside world. There are unconfirmed reports of an additional 35 such groups.

Many of them live in the forest like their forefathers did centuries ago, hunting and gathering.

More than three months after the photographs sparked an international media frenzy, Funai officials continue to witness logging activity in the region. "There is evidence. We see timber floating down the river which originates in Peru," said Meira.

Survival International, a group that campaigns for tribal peoples' rights, said last week that the Peruvian government had not lived up to its promise of publishing an investigation into accusations of illegal logging.

"The Peruvian government must not be allowed to bury this issue, or to turn their backs on the uncontacted tribes," said Survival's director, Stephen Corry.

The issue will be discussed at an international conference on native Indians in Georgetown, Guyana, later this month, Meira said.

Advancing loggers also threaten isolated tribes in Brazil's northern Mato Gross state and along the upper Xingu river in Para state, Meira said.

(Reporting by Raymond Colitt, editing by Ross Colvin)

Story Date: 15/9/2008

***