Tony Benn Dies Aged 88 – An Icon of the English Left

Very sad to hear the news that Tony Benn has died. He had been very ill for a little while and when last I saw him in the flesh, which was a couple of years ago, he looked very frail.

I once saw him make a speech at The Free Trade Hall of all places in Manchester in I think 1980, and he was very powerful, electric even and really inspiring, and I left the event feeling as though the revolution was about to begin in the next week or so.

Times change of course, and the revolution (a peaceful one, of course) looks further away than ever now, but Tony Benn was the only figure on the left from the 70’s and 80’s and before that managed to keep up with the new politics of the left, attending Left Field at the Glastonbury festival for example and he could engage easily with the younger generations.

I thought of trying to get a video clip for this blog of Tony Benn in his prime, but in end thought it more appropriate to feature a recent one, like the one above, because he really did adapt with the times, and could be just as inspirational in his later years.

He will be sadly missed by all those of a radical political persuasion, young and old. He constantly reminded us of our power to change things, and to never give up hope. A great man indeed. 

I warned Boris that his policies would lead to more cycling deaths

Jenny Jones AM is leader of the Green Party on the London Assembly and Green Party Mayoral candidate for 2012

Four out of five cycling deaths in the last nine days are linked to either the Mayor's red buses or to his blue paint.

After almost six years of inaction on cycle safety, the rise in the number of killed and seriously injured have to be placed at the Mayor’s door. That is why this morning he started blaming the victims, rather than talking about real solutions.

It is the lowest form of politics to direct attention to the mistakes that people may or may not have made as they cycled to work, or rode home to their families, in order to draw attention away from yourself.

The whole point of being Mayor is that you take responsibility for creating safer roads, where individual mistakes by a cyclist, driver, motorcyclist or pedestrian do not get punished with death.

Boris Johnson has previous form on blaming the victims, and repeatedly refused to apologise for the wildly incorrect statistic he used to claim that the majority of deaths and injuries where down to cyclist infractions of the rules. Transport for London refused to back up his claim and the Mayor reluctantly agreed it wasn’t true, but it was a resentful, grudging conversation.

The Mayor even returned to his favourite theme that London’s roads were getting safer for cyclists and he wanted me to apologise for saying they were not. The reality is that they are safer than they were twelve years ago, but they have become more dangerous since he was elected.

My office have been trying to get TfL to make the post 2008 calculation on the ratio of cyclist death and serious injuries since July. We wanted them to do it so that we could avoid another spat between me and Boris over who had better statistics.

Instead TfL have told us that ‘they do not regularly publish’ such figures and directed us instead to the raw data. The calculation seems easy enough so here it is:

In 2008, on average a cyclists could make 401,910 trips before being killed or seriously injured.
In 2011, the average cyclist could make 364,361 trips before being killed or seriously injured.
The 2012 figures will show that this trend has accelerated; I have no idea what 2013 will finally bring, but I suspect it won’t be good news.

I have repeatedly warned Boris Johnson that his policies would lead to more death and injury. Whether it was slashing over £35m off the road safety budget, abandoning the road hierarchy which had previously made cyclist and pedestrian safety the top priority,  or stopping safety improvements at junctions because they might create a traffic jam.

The Mayor made mistakes and stayed firmly in denial about the consequences. He still is. For all the talk of a £900m cycle safety budget, he still believes in those comments about keeping ‘your wits about you’ and ‘there is no amount of traffic engineering that we invest in that is going to save people’s lives’.

The solutions are obvious and uncomplicated. Make 20mph the default speed limit across London. Give space for cycling by taking it away from cars and lorries. Ban HGVs during commuter hours. Get rid of the major gyratories and start from scratch with the redesign of places like Bow Roundabout and Old Street. Fast track all the safety measures on the top 100 most dangerous junctions.

While the Mayor is doing all of that, he could start to enforce the rules on our lawless roads, so we no longer have 62 hit and runs a week in London, or a situation where the majority of drivers with over 12 points on their licence are legally allowed to drive.

First published at Left Foot Forward

Just how much media coverage does UKIP get?

With 25 appearances by Nigel Farage on Question Time and more than 23,000 press mentions, UKIP is attracting historically unprecedented levels of coverage for a minor party.

"Oh no, not Nigel again!" groaned some Question Time viewers last week as they sat down for the fourth time this year to hear the views of the leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Nigel Farage has appeared on the show no less than 25 times, 15 of which have come since 2009, while in the past four years, a further six slots have gone to other Ukippers like Paul Nuttall, Diane James and Patrick O'Flynn. This means that since 2009, UKIP spokespersons have sat on the panel on 21 occasions, almost double the number for the Greens (11) and more than double the number for Respect (10).

Unsurprisingly, these figures have led some to argue that Farage receives a level of publicity that is not only disproportionate to his party’s actual strength, but also exceeds that given to other insurgents who have achieved what UKIP has not: a seat in Westminster. Some go further, suggesting that parts of the media have a vested interest in supplying UKIP with the 'oxygen of publicity' so as to pile pressure on David Cameron and trigger a rightward turn on issues like the EU, immigration and gay marriage. But of course this may all be far more straightforward: Farage is a skilled, media-trained populist who contrasts sharply to an otherwise bland and robot-like political elite. It's only natural that journalists flock to an outsider who gives them good copy.

But this does raise an intriguing question: exactly how prominent are Farage and UKIP in British media? As part of our forthcoming book in 2014, Revolt on the Right, we used a well-established database (Nexis) to track the number of times UKIP and Farage are mentioned in UK-based newspapers. This is only a small part of the book, which analyses over 100,000 voters and includes interviews with key insiders to explain UKIP’s support and what it tells us about British politics. But it is a useful, 'quick and dirty' way of measuring a party’s profile across all newspapers. It does not account for the nature of this coverage (i.e. positive or negative), and does not include radio, television or social media. But given that print media continues to set much of the agenda in British politics, it remains a valuable yardstick.

Figure 1

First, in Figure 1, we track the number of citations for UKIP and Farage from 2003, when UKIP was a largely unknown fringe party with only three MEPs, to November 2013, when it had become a serious force, tipped to win the 2014 European elections. This reveals how media interest in UKIP has surged, particularly since 2012. In 2003, the party was not even mentioned 600 times; ten years later it was flagged more than 23,000 times (and only until November). Similarly, in 2003, Farage was barely visible with only 36 mentions, but 10 years later this had rocketed to over 8,000.

Clearly much of this marks a response to UKIP’s growth in the polls. But whereas UKIP enjoyed record gains in 2004 and 2009, the media attention it won after these breakthroughs is dwarfed by the wave of coverage it has received in the past two years. In 2012, UKIP mentions reached a record high of over 10,000, but so far in 2013 this figure has already more than doubled again, and with two months of the year still left to run. Interest in Farage has risen even more steeply – his mentions more than doubled between 2011 and 2012, and have already quadrupled in 2013. It is likely this trend will continue into 2014, as Britain braces for European elections, and then into 2015 as journalists debate the possibility of a UKIP seat in Westminster and the possibility of a EU referendum.

Figure 2



Second, how does this picture compare to other insurgents? Figure 2 compares UKIP’s coverage to the Greens, Respect and British National Party. From 2005 until 2009, the picture was far less rosy for Nigel and his party: they attracted less attention than the Greens and were fighting in the 'media war' to move away from the BNP. But since 2011, the party has really come into its own, rapidly moving away from other minor competitors to achieve historically unprecedented levels of coverage.

Figure 3



It is a similar picture in Figure 3, which compares Farage‘s profile to that of Caroline Lucas, George Galloway and Nick Griffin. Until 2012, Farage was often eclipsed by Griffin and Galloway (though never Lucas). We can see how Galloway gains profile during the 2005 campaign and then after his by-election victory in Bradford in 2012, while Griffin peaks during his European breakthrough in 2009. Interestingly, Lucas does not attract an equivalent spike in coverage following her breakthrough into Westminster. In fact, in comparison she is nowhere to be seen. Yet since 2012, Farage has rocketed onto a new level, leaving behind other smaller party leaders who have managed to win representation in Westminster. Journalists clearly are not shaped by electoral reality.

We can also put this into a broader context. While his party is now regularly polling ahead of the Liberal Democrats, Farage, at least in terms of media profile, remains some way behind Nick Clegg, unsurprising given that the latter is in government and the Deputy Prime Minister. So far in 2013, Farage has been mentioned almost 9,000 times compared to almost 20,000 citations for Clegg. But he is closing the gap.

Figure 4



This brings us to our final point concerning the nature of UKIP’s coverage. As Figure 4 shows, UKIP is not only attracting historically unprecedented levels of interest, it is also now beginning to broaden out its 'media attack'. In previous years, the party was most often mentioned alongside the EU, which is unsurprising given its goals. But since 2011, the number of articles that mention UKIP alongside immigration has risen sharply, representing around 40% of its total coverage in 2013.

This is not coincidental but reflects UKIP’s change of strategy since 2011, which we detail in the book. It is the first piece of evidence that UKIP are entrenching themselves at the centre of Britain’s ongoing debate over immigration and its effects, which given the approaching debate over migration from Bulgaria and Romania, and the fact that public concerns over immigration remain high, also looks set to continue. UKIP’s plan to expand its eurosceptic origins by targeting immigration is yielding dividends, as is Farage’s more aggressive media strategy. In interviews with us, those close to Farage often voiced anxiety about the impact of a relentless schedule on their leader’s health. Some complained how he often gives his personal number to journalists, and refuses to 'switch off'. The strategy may well be wearing Farage down, but it is also producing results. Whether his party can sustain this interest, and ensure it is strictly for positive reasons, remains to be seen.

Matthew Goodwin is Associate Professor at the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Nottingham, and Associate Fellow at Chatham House. @GoodwinMJ

Robert Ford is a politics lecturer at the University of Manchester. @robfordmancs

First published at The New Statesman

Sharon Shoesmith was unfairly dismissed – so she deserves a payout

The precipitous sacking of Haringey's former children's services chief over Baby P silenced debate over what went wrong. £600k is the price for that silence

Describe a successful outcome for a social services department trying to protect a child. I cannot. Every possible solution can legitimately be criticised. Only last month a senior family court judge criticised adoption and social services reforms as encouraging a propensity to remove children too quickly. On the other hand, if a child is not removed soon enough, the risk is a repeat of a tragic case like the death of Peter Connelly.

That is the tightrope that social services work walks on a daily basis, in the field of child protection and most other work. It is work which is de facto defined by its failure, as it can only be judged against totally unquantifiable alternatives. The death of any child in the hands of abusive adults is nothing short of a catastrophe. How many deaths are avoided each year by the removal of children from such situations cannot be quantified. The former is highly publicised, because – let's face it – dead children sell newspapers. The latter can never be reported.

A rise in the number of children removed from their families is also seen as a measure of failure to support. All this means that the relative "success" of such work is necessarily judged by the number of human lives it sought to make better, and did not. It is against this backdrop that I find the hysteria with which the Sharon Shoesmith settlement has been met deeply unhelpful and counterproductive. Tim Loughton, the former children's minister says it "stinks". Former children's secretary Ed Balls says it "sticks in the craw".

The underlying conclusion, explicitly stated by some newspapers, is that Shoesmith was ultimately rewarded for her failure. The court of appeal, however, decided that there is a process of natural justice for arriving at such a conclusion and that the process was circumvented. She was scapegoated for the sake of political expediency. For politicians to persist with trotting out that she had failed at her job, is to continue with precisely the same sort of conduct. Shoesmith was never afforded the chance of responding to the criticism in the report. Instead, she found out that she had been fired by watching a hastily convened press conference on television.

You may agree with that way of doing things or not. You may find it swift and decisive rather than precipitous. But the undeniable legal fact is that it was unlawful. And the penalty for the state acting unlawfully as an employer is compensation. It reflects the fact that, not only was Shoesmith's life destroyed without due process, but also that a proper conclusion about what happened around the case of that poor child's death cannot, and will never, be properly reached.

That compensation, the precise level of which we don't actually know but which is reported to be about £600,000, will include significant legal costs accrued during a lengthy battle and roughly £300,000 in salary, since this was a judicial review decision in which she was adjudged not to have been properly dismissed for the two years while the fight went on. Both those elements, which make up the bulk of her settlement, could have been avoided by the state acting properly.

The easy conclusion is to say that a woman directly responsible for a child's death has been rewarded with what Newsnight described as "a small fortune". The more difficult discussion is that perhaps, just perhaps, the death of children in the hands of cruel and evil parents can never be absolutely prevented within the current framework. This is the discussion that was denied a public forum by the government's actions. What is more, tragically, the way this case has been handled makes future tragedies more, not less, likely. It makes social work even more risk averse and focused on covering one's own back with paperwork, rather than helping people. It makes bright candidates, well suited to the field, less likely to choose it as a career.

The buck must stop with Shoesmith, pronounced assorted pundits. Why is that? That line is convenient, but rather arbitrary. Why must the buck stop with the head of a particular social services and not, for instance, the head of the local authority who allocated the budget and had oversight, or Ofsted which gave the services in question a good rating just before the circumstances of this case came to light, or the minister responsible at the time? It may well have been that through the proper process Shoesmith would be judged to have failed and to be the person ultimately responsible. We will never know. The debate has been silenced and £600k is the price for that silence.

There is another, perhaps more fundamental, tension that receives no attention. Many of the same commentators, who rightly tear their garments over every tragic incident, are precisely the same ones who want government to shrink, rail against the interventionist "nanny state", condemn local authorities for what they pay to senior staff and feel taxation – at whatever level – is too high. The positions are mutually exclusive. Well-funded, well-trained social workers and their managers cost money, which many are not willing to pay. A shrunken, non-interventionist, poorly funded state lacks the capacity to stand in the corner of every living room in the country, observe what people get up to and always intervene at precisely the right moment. So, which is it?


Written by Alex Andreou and first published at The Guardian

Labour Party Conference - Welcome to Brighton

The Green party welcomes Labour to Brighton with the message. We are the real opposition to the ConDems.

Labour to End Affiliation Links to Trade Unions

 

The Guardian newspaper, amongst many other media outlets, reports that the Labour party is seriously considering cutting off affiliation to the trade unions in a move that would end over a hundred years of such arrangements, beginning in 1904 when the unions formed the Labour Representation Committee, which later became the Labour party.

There are many on the right in the Labour party who have wanted to make the break for a number of years now, but the Falkirk by-election candidate selection row with the union Unite, has given fresh impetus to the idea. Without knowing all of the facts surrounding what has gone on in Falkirk, it seems to me that Unite has not broken any Labour party rules, by paying Labour party affiliation fees for members of the union who live in the constituency. And Unite’s argument that it is only trying to increase the number of Labour party MPs from working class backgrounds from the paltry 9% currently in situ, does seem to be a noble aim.

Starting in the 1980’s when Neil Kinnock was Labour party leader, and then pushed much further by Tony Blair when he became leader, there has been a centralising of the decision making for Labour candidates in winnable seats. Some of the justification for this, to get more women into Parliament for example, was good in its intent, but at the same time they had to be the ‘right sort’ of women to benefit. In the main, these candidates’ men or women had to find favour with the Labour leadership in terms of political ideology. This system brought us such political titans as Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith, so enough said there then.

Unite is only playing the same game as the Labour leadership, in trying to influence the selection of candidates who are more in tune with the values of trade unionism, which given the huge amount of funding provided by the union to Labour (£3 million this year alone), is not in the least bit unreasonable.

So will Labour cut the link? I think there may be some reshuffling of present affiliation rules, but at the end of the day Labour needs the unions’ money. Tony Blair disastrously tried to move away from this dependence when he was leader, wooing wealthy individuals into giving donations, but various patronages scandals cast a shadow over this type approach (though it doesn’t stop the Tories) and it moved Labour even further away from the interests of the people who they were elected to represent. I have my doubts there will be complete break, but it would not surprise me if it happened. Labour has been travelling along this road for getting on for thirty years now.

I say to the unions, wake up and smell the coffee brothers and sisters, the Labour party will never be the party to represent the interests of your members ever again. Labour has become a party of the neo-liberal establishment, with all that that entails. Labour, even in these times of the abject failure of neo-liberalism, will not challenge the status quo, and will only throw a few crumbs from the table to your members.

The decision for the unions is quite simple really. The break with Labour will happen although probably slowly, so what should they do about it? The unions should either form their own party, or back the Green party, or perhaps more likely join a broad electoral coalition of the left, which should include the Green party, and build an electoral movement to change our grossly unequal and unrepresentative politics for good.  

Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

Brighton Pavilion MP Caroline Lucas vows to reject £10,000 pay hike

A politician has vowed to turn down a controversial pay hike of up to £10,000 a year.

Despite a likely public outcry, an official review is set to recommend that salaries for our MPs in Westminster should increase by about 15 per cent to up to £75,000 after the next general election.

The findings by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) comes in the wake of the expenses scandal and as many in the public sector are experiencing real term cuts to their pay.

While some Sussex MPs refused to rule out accepting the wage rise, Brighton Pavilion MP Caroline Lucas became one of the first politicians in the country to reject the hike. The country’s only Green MP said: “At a time of economic crisis, with so many of our constituents struggling to make ends meet, the proposal is utterly wrong.

“Like many MPs, I support the idea of an independent body to manage MPs’ salaries and expenses away from interference by politicians, but IPSA isn’t doing itself any favours with these hugely out of touch proposals.”

Sir Ian Kennedy, the head of the regulator, is set to make an announcement on proposals sometime this month. But it is widely rumoured the recommendation will be to increase a backbench MP salary from £66,000 to £75,000.

This was after an Ipsa survey earlier this year showed that seven in ten MPs believe they are underpaid compared with other professionals.

Any decision by Sir Ian cannot be overturned by the Prime Minister because MPs gave up the power to determine their own salaries in 2009.

First published at the Brighton Argus

Margaret Thatcher – A Class Warrior For The Rich

A huge amount is being written in the mainstream media about the former Tory Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who died on Monday morning, most of it sycophantic rubbish, but worse still, there is also a concerted attempt to rewrite history, preferring instead a story which is reminiscent of a Greek myth or Kim Jong-Il’s golfing exploits (seven holes in one out of eighteen, the first time he picked up a golf club).

I do feel that I’m entitled to have my two pence worth on her time in office, as I was seventeen when she was elected as Prime Minister in 1979, and she blighted my life as a young man in the north of England, forcing me to move south in a search for some kind of future. I was young and well enough educated and could afford to up everything and move, which wasn’t the case for everyone, despite Norman Tebbit’s exhortations to the unemployed to do just that. But all the same, I felt compelled to leave my community, just to have a chance of getting a job and making a life for myself.

The story painted in the media of the late 1970’s is of a country ‘on its knees’, in need of a strong leader to make the nation great and proud (again), ‘held ransom’ by over mighty trade union ‘barons’, with runaway inflation, rising unemployment, inefficient state owned industries draining the public purse and consequently high rates of taxation. A deeply divided once great nation crippled by the evil doctrine of socialism.

Instead, we needed a fresh approach, becoming fashionable at the time through figures such Milton Friedman and others at the Chicago Business School, where unions were tamed, public industries and services privatised, income tax cut (mostly for the wealthy), and ‘red tape’ was cut, which in turn would free up entrepreneurs to create wealth which would ‘trickle down’ to the little people in due course.

That was the rhetoric, at least, in practice we had mass unemployment in the industrial heartlands of the north of England, Scotland and Wales with the closure of most of the state owned heavy industries, (this had the added advantage of reducing the membership and the power of the unions), cuts in welfare benefits, a cut in income tax (mostly for the wealthy) but a sharp increase in indirect taxes (hitting the poorest proportionately most), which led to an equally sharp increase in inflation, and a giveaway (mostly to the wealthy) of the public utilities in privatisation and share issues. The financial services sector was deregulated, the so called ‘Big Bang’, leading to many risky and questionable practices being made legal. The employment market was made ‘flexible’.

Perhaps Thatcher’s most cunning idea was the ‘Right to Buy’ policy of encouraging tenants to buy their public housing at up 50% discount, which was extremely popular with a section of these tenants (those in the best houses, in the best areas), and effectively divided the working class between the ‘aspirational’ and the ‘losers’. People with mortgages were also less likely to go on strike too, so, so much the better. Classic divide and rule.     

Some areas of the country have still not recovered from Thatcher’s neo liberal policies, which have largely been maintained and taken further, under successive governments, most shamefully, a Labour government included. But from the viewpoint of recent history, we can see that Margaret Thatcher’s legacy is that she sowed the seeds of the present recession, from the housing crisis to the financial crisis, from the large amounts being spent on benefits rather than more productive investment, to the huge increase in wealth inequality. It all started in 1979.

The period from the end of World War 2 to 1979 saw a narrowing of the gap between the rich and the rest (fairly modest, but still), whereas post 1979 this gap has increased hugely, nationally and internationally too. And this is Thatcher’s true place in history, a warrior for the outraged establishment elite. She fought a class war on behalf of a world elite that had seen their wealth decrease in the post war years, to the advantage of the rest of us. Welfare states were demolished and income taxes for the rich reduced in the most audacious thievery from the people imaginable.

Margaret Thatcher was not a national heroine; she was a sort of Robin Hood in reverse. She was a very effective hench-woman for the ruling classes worldwide, so if she is to have some fancy funeral parade, then those whose dirty work she did, should send her off in a privatised cavalcade, rather than add insult to injury for the majority of British people by making us pay for her procession.      

The above video/song is Shipbuilding by Robert Wyatt.    

Opinion Polls – Under the Radar

When polling organisations conduct political party voting intention opinion polls, usually commissioned by a newspaper, the story is always of how the three main (perhaps that should be two now) parties are faring, and which leader has the best approval ratings.

The polls have been pretty consistent over recent months, showing Labour with a double digit lead over the Conservatives, and the poor old Lib Dems flat lining at around 10%, sometimes as low as 8%. But if you look more closely, the ‘others’ are doing surprisingly well. The ‘story’ will only mention this in passing, but if you look at the full results, as political anoraks like me do, there is something happening, which is much more of a ‘story’ than that put out by the commissioning media outfits.

What you see is an impressive (around 10%) showing for UKIP, sometimes beating the Lib Dems into fourth place, and an improvement in the Green party share, which is around 3 or 4%. An example is this recent Opinium poll commission by The Observer newspaper. 

Now, that may not sound all that notable, but from my observations over the years, the Green party normally polls about 1 to 2% in national polls, except when there is an election (proportional) coming up like the European Parliament elections, when I’ve seen us poll as high as 6 or 7%.

This is a trend which I reported on this blog here back in May, and recent opinion polls do seem to confirm this view. But why is this happening?

I think the reasons are varied to some extent. Labour, Tory and Lib Dems all offer very similar policies these days, for one thing. The MP’s expenses scandal still resonates amongst the public too, and it is the main parties MP’s that were involved in this fraudulent raid on the public purse.  But I think the main reason is a desire amongst the voters to ‘protest’ vote, “sod the lot of you” type of thing.

What has changed on the party political landscape in recent years is that the Lib Dems are no longer the beneficiaries of this desire to stick it up the political establishment. They are of course in government now, though you would hardly know it with the Tories dominating the coalition government’s policies.

Another opinion poll from Opinum sheds some light on this particular theory. Take a look at this graphic (right hand side). Of those who voted Lib Dem in the 2010 general election, only a third are intending to vote Lib Dem again, with Labour gaining the most (39%) of those who have changed their allegiance but 8% have switched to UKIP and 10% to the Green party. I find the idea that voters can switch from the most pro-European of the British political parties (Lib Dems) to UKIP whose whole raison d’etre is being anti-Europe, somewhat bemusing, but there you go.

The 10% planning to vote Green is what has doubled our opinion poll score, which is a significant advance for us Greens, if not signalling some kind of major breakthrough. But it also means that we have much work to do, if we are to translate this into seats at Westminster and elsewhere. These voters are on the left politically, and so are our natural supporters.

Put simply, we have to get more of those 39% of former Lib Dem voters that are intending to vote Labour next time, to vote Green. Which is why we need to go on the attack, and expose Labour for what it is, a ‘Tory light’ party, sometimes not even so light.

Labour Party – Are You Tories in Disguise?

We might have expected it, with Ed Balls, the Labour shadow chancellor, stating in a pre-conference announcement he will stick to the Tory public sector pay freeze beyond the next general election, should Labour win. But this year’s Labour party conference has gone even further though, with the leader of the party stealing the ‘One Nation’ mantle from the Conservative party.

Ed Miliband isn’t the first Labour leader to snaffle this particular slogan of the pre Margaret Thatcher Conservative party. Tony Blair described New Labour as a ‘One Nation’ party in his (successful) bid to win over voters from the ‘middle ground’ in British politics. Of course, the ‘middle ground’ had shifted so far to the right in elite political discourse at that time, that it was probably not an exaggeration for him to claim it as a left wing position, as being akin to the Edward Heath led Conservative party of the 1970’s is indeed to the left all three main parties these days.

David Cameron depicted himself as a ‘One Nation’ Tory when he was attempting to detoxify the Conservative party brand, and so appeal to ‘middle ground’ voters, who are generally the most fickle anyway, and it worked, in a fashion for him too. I don’t think Cameron can play that card anymore though, with pressure from within the right of his party so strong now. So, in terms of positioning in the consciousness of the public, Labour and Miliband may well be onto something. Political ‘cross dressing’ doesn’t really surprise anyone these days, and it may be purely a presentational tactic.

But on top of the other portents that have been revealed at the Labour party conference this week, about the direction of Labour and the likely approach they would take to governing the country if they win the general election in 2015 (if the ConDem government lasts that long), this may well be more significant. Because make no mistake about it, the Labour party has staked its flag firmly on the already overcrowded centre right political compost heap, in Manchester this past few days.

The huffing and puffing of the unions has been ignored yet again, and it makes you think what on earth do the unions get out of funding a party that pursues policies that are so bad for their members? Hope of some crumbs here and there, I dare say, but is that really enough for the millions of pounds they put into Labour? Union members should ‘vote with their feet’ and support parties that represent their interests, and I think the Green party comes into this category, whatever union  leaders say about reclaiming the Labour party for working people. This is just a fantasy.

Liam Byrne, Labour’s shadow welfare secretary, is on record as saying that welfare benefits are likely to be slashed further under a future Labour administration, in line with Ed Balls taking a ‘zero-based’ review of public spending. Byrne claims that more benefits will be means tested, rather than universally available, such as free bus passes for the elderly, which is bad enough in itself, but does anyone really believe that Labour will restore Disability Living Allowance and Employment Support Allowance to those who have cruelly had it withdrawn from them under the ConDem government?

The leader of Scottish Labour, Johann Lamont went even further, claiming that we need to end the "something for nothing" culture, as applied to benefits in Scotland, and blaming the Scottish National Party led government north of the border for issuing ‘election bribes’ to voters. 

With no visible sign of irony, Andy Burnham the shadow health secretary, called for the reversal of the ‘rapid privatisation’ of the NHS, when the last Labour government opened the door to NHS privatisation with exorbitant Private Finance Initiative deals to build new hospitals whilst hiving off the most profitable parts of health service provision to private companies.  

And Ed Balls has ruled out taking the part nationalised RBS and Lloyds banks into full public ownership and using them as investment motors to get the economy moving again. He also refuses to confirm that a future Labour government would raise the top rate of income tax to 50%, let alone the 75% that the socialist government in France is introducing, or to raise corporation tax from the scandalously low rate it is, by even one penny in the pound.

The generous side of me thinks Ed Miliband would like to inch Labour slightly to the left, but it is clear that powerful voices within the party will not stand for it, and they get listened to carefully, unlike the unions.

So there you have it. The right wing press falls over each other in its praise of Ed Miliband’ speech and performance, and well they might. Nothing to fear here, on the contrary, business as usual for the establishment, as the rest of us continue to get shafted.

So much for the self-styled, ‘People’s Party’.   

Patriotism and the Left

My post on the London 2012 Olympics started a debate within Haringey Greens about patriotism in Britain and whether this is positive thing, or rather a reactionary, undesirable, and even dangerous concept. So, I’m expanding my thoughts here, and hope that my colleagues will post their opinions, either in a separate post, or via the comments section for this post.

I must say at the outset, that I’m not one for waving the Union Jack and like most people on the Left, patriotic behaviour makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. I think this stems from patriotism’s association with Britain’s imperialist history and the propensity of the Right (especially the far Right) to wrap themselves in the flag and the xenophobic and racist outlook that inexorably seems to flow from this position.

The other troubling kind of patriotism, perhaps more accurately described as jingoism, is when it is related to war. I can still remember my horror during the Falklands war against Argentina in the early 1980’s when a kind of collective madness swept the country, and every young man it seemed, became an armchair general and weapons expert, egged on by the ‘red top’ press and the BBC. The term ‘Argie’ was coined to describe the Argentinians and I learnt never to trust the BBC’s reporting when the country’s armed forces are in action.

I have always separated sport from this kind of patriotism though, and tended to support Britons in sporting contests. Even then, although I have always loved football, it was mainly of the club variety, and my club, Manchester United in particular. United have always had something of the ‘Celtic fringe’ about them, and even before globalisation, were an internationalist club. At one time, I supported Scotland in the football against England, because there were quite a few United players in the Scotland team, and none in the England team.

Gradually, over the years, I have changed my mind on the England football team. With large screens in pubs these days to watch international football, I like the community feel of these events (always a disappointing sporting result), and the ensuing camaraderie of watching the game in communal surroundings such as this affords.

I’ve been lucky enough to be working in the Olympic park over the course of the London Games, and anyone who has been there cannot fail to have noticed the great atmosphere, with the flags of many nations displayed. There was a joyous, excited spirit amongst the volunteers and spectators and not even a hint of aggression, but instead a friendly and respectful ambience that was tremendous to experience. Coupled with the multi-cultural make-up of the British team, I think this was a positive type of patriotism.

The Observer newspaper published an opinion poll this week that finds that 75% of respondents believe that the Olympics showed Britain to be ‘a confident multi-ethnic country’. The same proportion of people said they supported all Team GB athletes equally regardless of where they were born. The same newspaper has a piece by Tim Soutphommasane, The Australian is a political philosopher and author of the book, The Virtuous Citizen: Patriotism in a Multi-cultural Society, who is advising the Labour party leader, Ed Miliband, on such matters. It is well worth a read.

Drawing on experience mainly from Australia, he says multi-culturalism has been about securing civic equality. A demand for inclusion and respect, not separation and privileged treatment, which has been undermined to some extent, by the emphasis on a ‘community of communities’. As though there could be no common ground, but only difference. He concludes that after the success of the London Olympics, many countries are looking to Britain as an example of a dynamic multi-cultural society united by a generous patriotism.

The political Left cannot afford to leave the monopoly of the concept of patriotism to the political Right, because it is a deeply embedded cultural phenomenon, and we should have the confidence not to cede this ground to their ugly, separatist type of patriotism. The London Olympics have showed us the way to celebrate our positive patriotism, multi-cultural, inclusive and respectful of our country and of other countries cultures and people. We can use this positive force to grab the flag back from those who would use it to divide us, at home and internationally.          

     

The Ethical Case for People Power

Politics is far too important to be left to politicians. They are often the last people to get the message on social justice and human rights. Much of the time, pressure for social reform is first initiated outside of parliament by campaign groups like Greenpeace and Animal Aid, using challenging, even provocative, methods of protest. These extra-parliamentary activists are frequently the true sparks and catalysts of political change.

What do Mahatma Gandhi, Sylvia Pankhurst and Martin Luther King have in common? They all used direct action protest as a way of winning human rights and social justice.

Pleading with politicians was not their style. They tried conventional lobbying but found that writing letters to MPs and having tea with government ministers did not work.

Faced with an unresponsive political establishment, they staged street demonstrations, organised hunger strikes and sit-ins, refused to pay taxes and ambushed political leaders. By these means, India won its independence, women got the vote and racial segregation was ended in the USA.

Two decades ago, direct action secured one the biggest ever political climb-downs in modern British history. Margaret Thatcher’s much-hated Poll Tax was defeated when millions refused to pay and hundreds of thousands protested in the streets. Opposition MPs had proven powerless to stop the Poll Tax. But when people took power into their own hands, Thatcher’s flagship policy collapsed.

The defeat of the Poll Tax illustrates a very important principle: ordinary people have great power, if they choose to use it. Moreover, democracy is about more than voting once every five years. Having your say in a general election is fine, but not enough.

Something as important as running the country should never be left to politicians. Look at the mess they have created: their loosening of financial regulation paved the way for cowboy capitalism and the current economic meltdown. They have allowed criminal bankers to escape prosecution for the mass frauds they committed. The consequences? Mass unemployment and the decimation of people’s savings and pensions; plus savage cuts in public services, to the point where, to save money, some patients are being refused treatment by the NHS. It’s a scandal of monumental proportions. No wonder so many people are disillusioned with traditional politics. Hundreds of thousands are deserting the ballot box and turning to direct action protest instead. The student protests and “occupy” movements are giving voice to the anger of millions. 

Sometimes, it is pointless looking to politicians for help. They are often the cause of the problem. The vast majority of people are against genetically modified food, but the government insists that unsafe crop trials must continue. Three quarters of the public want an elected House of Lords but rebel MPs have succeeded in scuppering every attempt at democratisation. There was mass opposition to the war in Iraq but Tony Blair and a majority of MPs rode roughshod over the people’s will.

When politicians ignore the wishes of the people and break their promises, direct action is the only option left. Who can blame Greenpeace for wrecking GM crops and hunt saboteurs for saving foxes from being torn to shreds by dogs? Their methods got results when lobbying the government had failed.

The arguments for and against direct action revolve around two fundamentally different styles of politics. Representative democracy is the system where MPs are elected to represent their constituents and act on their behalf. This tends to encourage elitism and paternalism in politicians, and disempowerment and passivity among the electorate.

Participatory democracy is, in contrast, about people being involved in the political process in an on-going way, rather than only at election time. They take power for themselves, instead of handing over responsibility to professional politicians. This ensures better checks and balances against the abuse of power and against the way MPs so often neglect public opinion.

Direct action is the highest form of participatory democracy. People take power and represent themselves. They get involved in political decision-making, and through their own efforts bring about social change.

Having taken part in more than 3,000 direct action protests over the last 45 years, the beneficial effects are self-evident to me.

Take, for example, the issue of police victimisation of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. By 1989, the number LGBT people arrested for consenting, victimless behaviour was greater than in 1966, the year before the so-called decriminalisation of homosexuality. Respectable gay organisations like Stonewall lobbied the police, but were ignored. Then, in 1990, the queer rights group OutRage! began a high-profile direct action campaign to challenge harassment.

We invaded police stations, busted entrapment operations, photographed undercover officers and hounded the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

These were controversial tactics, but within three months the police were pleading with us to join them at the negotiating table. Soon afterwards they began their first serious dialogue with the LGBT community. Before a year had passed, they had agreed to most of our demands for a non-homophobic policing policy. Within three years, the number of men convicted of ‘gross indecency’ (consensual same-sex behaviour) fell by two-thirds - the biggest, fastest fall ever recorded. Our campaign helped save thousands of LGBTs from arrest, prosecution and criminal records.

My conclusion? Direct action can be a highly effective way to change things for the better – and sometimes the only way. When well planned, it works.

An imaginative protest can be a very dramatic, headline-grabbing way to draw public attention to injustices that might otherwise be ignored or overlooked. If you can get a protest in the news, it helps raise awareness of the issue and puts people in power under pressure to address your concerns.

Many of my direct action protests have involved civil disobedience - deliberate law-breaking modelled on the sit-ins of the US black civil rights campaigners in the 1960s. Indeed, in the early 1970s, I was involved in sit-ins at pubs in London that, in those days, refused to serve “queers”.

Breaking the law can be ethically justified in three circumstances: when politicians ignore the wishes of the majority, break their election promises or violate human rights.

Sometimes, of course, the majority will may conflict with the protection of human rights. This happened in Nazi Germany, where most people, either explicitly or tacitly, colluded with the persecution of Jews. In such cases, the protection of human rights should always trump majority opinion. No majority has the right to victimise minorities.

Direct action can be a vital mechanism for the defence of democracy and liberty, against the abuse of state power or mob tyranny, as exemplified by the suffragettes and the Anti-Nazi League.

Far from threatening the democratic process, protest from outside the parliamentary system protects and enhances democracy - acting as a much-needed counter-balance to the frequent arrogance, self-interest and elitism of political parties and politicians. Power to the people!

Written by Peter Tatchell

For more information about Peter Tatchell’s human rights and social justice campaigns: http://www.petertatchell.net/

House of Lords Reform – Overdue but Hardly a Priority

MP’s will vote on Tuesday (10 July) on the House of Lords Reform Bill, which rather modestly seeks to have 80% of peers elected by 2025, with the remaining 20% appointed by a statutory appointments commission, and reducing the total number of representatives in the upper chamber from 826 to 450. Elections would take place on the same day as the general election on an open-list system from eight different regions. The open list system is designed to give voters a choice between voting for a party and individuals.

Up to 100 Tory MP’s have said that they will vote with Labour to defeat the ‘programme motion’ which would put a limit on debate in the House of Commons to a maximum of 14 days, therefore throwing  into doubt  whether the bill will pass through the Commons at all. Opposition can also be expected in the House of Lords itself, where there are considerable numbers of Tory peers unhappy with the proposals.

The last Labour government began Lords reform, in a piecemeal, incremental way, first abolishing most of the hereditary peers, and then finally moving to a fully appointed chamber after a few more years. Clearly, in a democratic system, the hereditary principle had to go, and appointing peers is not much better, and so further reform is necessary. In my opinion all members of the upper house should be elected, and by a fairer, proportional system which reflects the diverse support for each of the political parties, including us Greens.

Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader is desperate for some kind of enduring ‘legacy’ for his deputy premiership and as some kind of justification for his party’s participation in the coalition government with the Tories. It is hard to see what progressive gains they have achieved thus far, so it is easy to understand Clegg’s determination to push this through and claim credit for the policy. Indeed, he has gone so far as to suggest that if the Bill does not pass, he will withdraw his MP’s support for the parliamentary boundary changes that the Tories want to improve their prospects at the next general election.

A recent Yougov poll for The Sun newspaper indicates that 76% of the British public support a fully or mostly elected House of Lords, but goes onto to say that only 18% regard Lords reform as an urgent matter. This seems about right to me, it is impossible to defend an unelected House, but it is pretty low on my list of political priorities at the moment. So many other issues, the state of the economy, jobs, welfare reform, privatisation of the NHS, climate change, public service cuts and education policy all dwarf constitutional reform at the moment in terms of importance.

If the price of losing Lords reform is the blocking of the parliamentary boundary changes in the Tories favour, then bring it on. And if this puts further pressure on the ConDem coalition government, perhaps even bringing about its early demise, as some have suggested, so much the better.          

God Save the Queen, the Fascist Regime

With the Queen’s diamond Jubilee fast approaching, the UK media has gone into overdrive with lavish praise of our monarch’s selfless devotion to duty and public service etc etc. The BBC always goes into a somewhat comic routine, of reporting any news of the royal family in hushed tones, as though raising one’s voice to even normal levels of acoustics when describing Her Majesty and family, is the very height of vulgarity.

 The Guardian even reports on a survey where 69% of Britons say that the country would be worse off without the monarchy. Of course, depending on what the exact question is and how it is asked will often get you the answer that you are looking for, with only 22% of people thinking we would be better off. These results do surprise me little though, as when the recent royal marriage was taking place between Prince William and Kate Middleton, there was only the odd isolated union flag or bunting where I live in north London. It seemed to me that no one was really very interested in the event, though they were happy to spend the extra bank holiday in supermarkets, pubs and DIY stores.

Again we have been granted an extra day’s bank holiday, which when it is combined with the delayed late spring bank holiday and the weekend, forms a four day block of celebration from 2nd June to 5th June. No doubt people are happy to have an extra day off and will again find ways of using the time, without taking more than a cursory interest in the Jubilee itself.

I remember the Queen’s silver Jubilee in 1977, and proudly displaying my ‘Stuff the Jubilee’ badge, much to the shock of many people I came into contact with, who mostly labelled me a communist, which I suppose wasn’t too far from the truth. And who can forget the hit song ‘God Save the Queen’ by the Sex Pistols from the same year (featured above)? A brilliantly vibrant piss take of our rather dreary national anthem. The BBC banned the song from being played on Radio 1, by far the most influential radio station at the time for selling records, which of course increased its appeal, and it went straight to number 1.

I must confess, I have obtained a ‘Stuff the Jubilee’ badge again, but don’t expect wearing it will illicit anything like the opprobrium it did in 1977. People don’t just seem to identify with the monarchy in the same deep rooted way they used to. For example, virtually the whole nation would watch the Queen’s Christmas address in those days, but now what proportion of the population watches it? Probably less than half, by some way.

I think the present Queen holds some measure of respect amongst her subjects, mainly because she has been around for so long, and to be fair, hasn’t done anything majorly embarrassing to the nation, unlike other members of ‘The Firm’. But surely, this is the least we can expect, from someone who in return has led a life of luxury at the tax payer’s expense? It would be an appropriate response to the austerity agenda of the present for the Queen to have a celebration on the cheap, but oh no, millions of pounds will be wasted on this event. The authorities are even stealing the Sex Pistols idea, and sailing the monarch up and down the Thames on a boat.

So, will we have a republic anytime soon? Well, not until Queen Elizabeth’s reign is over to be sure. The same Guardian survey mentioned above though, does indicate that her likely successor Prince Charles has nothing like as much support as his mother amongst the public. Given his meddling in politics and lobbying of ministers, which we are not allowed to see the full details of, since the royal household is exempted from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, he may become even more unpopular. Unfortunately, that window may not be open for very long, as the Queen looks to have a good few years left in her yet, and the crown may pass quite quickly on to the next generation, and so conjure up the people’s ambivalence once again.

If only Cromwell hadn’t fucked it up, banning dancing and all that, we may now never be rid of them.

UK Voters Attracted to Small Parties

The Independent on Sunday reports on a ComRes opinion poll which indicates potential support for small parties in Britain is on the rise. Although the report highlights the possible rise in support for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and a rise in Euroscepticism amongst the British public, with the resultant difficulties this could cause David Cameron and the Conservative party, it also looks just as favourable to other small parties.

One third of people who voted Conservative at the last general election now say they have now switched or are ready to switch to voting UKIP. With the current problems in the Eurozone, it is no great surprise that Euroscepticism is gaining ground and so too UKIP with its xenophobic stance on all things European. Indeed, I think UKIP would have won at least one seat on the London Assembly had they not for some reason changed their name on the ballot paper to ‘First Choice for London’.

But the report goes on to say:

‘The ComRes/IoS poll reveals deep dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties, with 37 per cent of their supporters seriously considering switching to smaller parties. Among all voters polled, 13 per cent are pondering backing Ukip, with the same proportion poised to vote Green. Four per cent are considering supporting the BNP, and 3 per cent could vote for George Galloway's Respect party. Only 38 per cent are not considering changing their allegiance.’

‘Among Labour voters, the disaffected are most likely to be looking to the Green Party (19 per cent), Ukip (11 per cent) or the Lib Dems (10 per cent). Of Lib Dem supporters, 28 per cent are considering switching to the Greens, 27 per cent to the Conservatives, 21 per cent to Labour and 14 per cent to Ukip.’

All of which means that for the Green party there is a quite large pool of potential voters, who are clearly not all that impressed with the big parties, and could well switch to us if we can show that we are a credible alternative. The British electoral landscape has never been so open as this poll indicates. Although Labour did well in the recent London Assembly elections, this poll shows that their support is far from rock solid and voters on the left are thinking about choosing the Green party to represent their views.

The Green party needs to win more seats at all levels of government to cement this position, but also, just as UKIP puts pressure on the Conservatives to be more right wing, the Green party can do the same job on the Labour party, although obviously pulling them to the left in our case.

This drop in support for the main established parties is echoed all across Europe with pro austerity parties paying the price for the failed laissez faire economic policies that have brought us to this sorry pass. People seem more open to listen to an alternative now, than at any time in the last thirty years, which presents the Green party with a unique opportunity to advance.  

Why I'm stepping down as leader of the Green party

In September, I will reach the end of my second term as the first national leader of the Green party of England and Wales – and I've decided not to seek re-election for another two-year term.
When I first joined the party back in 1986, it was a core article of faith for many members that we should not have a conventional leader in the traditional mould. It's true that formal leadership carries risks.

Presenting one image as the "face" of a party can attract some people, but put off others. At a deeper level, if leadership is about concentrating power in the hands of a single person or an inner circle, it is damaging to the cause and can lead to poor decision-making.

But leadership is also a powerful tool that can draw people in and inspire them. Trying to sell abstract ideas to the public rarely works. People want to see the human face of an organisation, to help them understand what it is there for and to judge if they trust it. So when the decision was finally made in 2007 to establish the roles of leader and deputy leader of the Green party, it wasn't about sacrificing a principle to gain some votes. It was about changing the way we worked to help communicate our passion and principles in a more effective way. It is an example of how we found the right balance between principles and pragmatism, and how the party had become more self-confident.

It was always my view that leadership, for the Greens, did not have to be about seizing power and holding on to it at all costs. Leaders must have confidence in their abilities as well as their cause. But to ensure that every individual in the movement feels a personal responsibility, they should also be eager to share out the responsibilities of leadership with others, from shaping policy to maintaining morale. In other Green parties around the world, leaders have often been the first to recognise that the time has come for others to take up that responsibility; a healthy contrast to seeing traditional politicians clawing at their desks in a vain attempt to hang on to power.

I am hugely honoured to have served my party in this role, and proud that during the four years of my term, we've moved Green politics forward to a higher level, with the party by far the most influential it has ever been. We have seen significant breakthroughs, not only in Brighton & Hove, winning our first seat at Westminster and our first ever local council, but also nationally, with further breakthroughs on to new councils in the recent local elections, as well as establishing ourselves as the third party, ahead of the Liberal Democrats, in the elections for London mayor and the London Assembly.

Green politics has shifted from the margins to the mainstream of British political life. As the party grows, buoyed by a new generation of activists and underpinned by the achievements of our outstanding elected members, now is the time to make space for other talented Greens to come through and take us even further forward. For me, this decision is about staying true to green principles. We're lucky to have a wealth of capability and experience in our ranks, and taking a strategic approach to leadership is a natural step in maturing as a party and nurturing future electoral aspirations. I'm confident that the next leader, whoever they may be, will be able to build on our momentum.

Now I look forward to channelling even more of my energy into representing the people of Brighton Pavilion, speaking out in parliament on behalf of my constituents and doing all I can to defend them against the coalition government's disastrous economic policies. I will continue to be a lead advocate for the party, and will hold the government to account on its environmental and social responsibilities.

The Greens have a clear vision of how we must now move away from our broken economic system – which for too long has kept us dangerously dependent on the bankers' gambles, toxic debt and on the plundering of natural resources – and towards a fairer, more sustainable economy. People are increasingly recognising that we are a credible alternative to the three main Westminster parties, and as communities up and down the country feel the consequences of savage yet self-defeating austerity – paying the price for a crisis they did not create – that Green alternative has never been more necessary.

Written by Caroline Lucas, MP
First published in The Guardian here

Green Party Publishes Most Inclusive and Accessible Manifesto Ever

The Green Party has published its most accessible and inclusive manifesto ever for the London mayoral and assembly elections on May 3rd.

Translated into 17 languages the party’s policy proposals are also available in Large Print Large Print, Easy-read, audio, British Sign Language and Subtitled versions. Campaign materials such as its London Green News have also been produced in a range of formats, including audio versions.

A specific ‘accessibility’ manifesto also sets out how the Green Party aims to make London an inclusive city. The Party has also produced a customised tube map, showing what the London underground looks like if you have a mobility impairment, which has gone viral across the internet and social media.

“The Green Party’s vision is of a truly inclusive capital where those who are too often excluded are placed at the centre of London’s life” said the Green Party’s mayoral candidate Jenny Jones.

“Our commitment to real equality in London is reflected not just in our policies but the way they are being presented and being made accessible to all Londoners.

“At this election every vote counts because of the proportional system. So every vote for a Green mayor or a Green Assembly member is a vote for an inclusive London."

For more information, contact Joe Williams on 07825511927, @earsopen or joe.williams@greenparty.org.uk

Greenwash Olympics in London

Human rights and environmental pressure groups have joined forces to campaign against three sponsors of the London Olympics.

The protest campaign - called Greenwash Gold 2012 - has targeted Dow Chemical Company, BP and Rio Tinto.

The group has made three animated films about the firms and members of the public will be invited to vote online for the "worst corporate sponsor".

All three companies have defended their ethical record.

The films include footage of:

A survivor of the Bhopal gas leak disaster in 1984. Dow agreed to purchase the Union Carbide Corporation - whose subsidiary Union Carbide India ran the Bhopal pesticide plant - in 1999. The purchase was completed in 2001.
A representative from the Gulf Coast where communities have been dealing with the environmental impact of BP's oil spill in April 2010
A woman from Utah who claims she is fighting against "life-threatening" air pollution levels caused by one of the mines from which Rio Tinto is providing the metal for the Olympic metals.

'Money talks'

Meredith Alexander, who quit as a commissioner of the 2012's sustainability watchdog in protest over the link between the Bhopal disaster and Dow Chemical Company's involvement in the Games, chaired the campaign launch.

"The Olympic values are all about celebrating our common humanity. But the Olympics is also big business," she said.

"There is an expensive machine behind the Games that is funded by corporate sponsors. Sadly when these sponsors are selected, money talks much more loudly than values."

Dow has always denied any liability for the chemical gas leak and maintains the £288m ($470m) settlement for those affected is fair and final.

BP refused to comment on Greenwash Gold 2012, but in June 2010, the oil firm's regional vice president Peter Mather defended the company's actions.

"Our focus as a company is 100% on the Gulf of Mexico, doing the right thing - doing the right thing on the seabed and our focus is also on the shore," he said.

A Rio Tinto spokesman, defended the company's actions saying: "We operate within the parameters of our air permits and are consistently in compliance with US Environmental Protection Agency and Utah Division of Air Quality regulations, which are based on strict standards for protecting human health."

London 2012 is yet to comment on the campaign launch.

First published by the BBC here

The campaign group for a cleaner Olympics are the Counter Olympics Network

Racism in English Football

Two recent high profile cases of footballers in England racially abusing opponents have shone a spotlight onto racism in the English national game. I have to say, compared with when I watched football in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the game has made good progress. In those days, black players were fairly rare, but whenever they touched the ball, opposing fans would break into a bout of booing. Some of the barracking was even worse, and who can forget the infamous incident when Everton fans threw bananas at the black Liverpool and England player, John Barnes? Other countries in Europe appear to have far worse racism problems in their football than England do, where black players are still routinely booed and abused.

Now, the English premier league attracts many footballers from many races and nationalities, and is the most popular national league in the world. But these recent incidents have demonstrated that racism still has a presence in English football.

Louis Suarez, the Uruguay and Liverpool player, was found guilty by a Football Association (FA) tribunal of racially abusing Patrice Evra the black French international, who plays for Manchester United. He received an eight match ban, but continued to proclaim his innocence and the unfairness of it all, and was backed to the hilt by his manager Kenny Dalglish and Liverpool Football Club.

The situation reached a nadir at the weekend when starting for the first time since his ban, Suarez refused to shake the hand of Evra before the return meeting of the two clubs in Manchester. Ex- Liverpool players, current players, assorted commentators, corporate sponsors and Liverpool’s American owners all demanded an apology from Suarez and his manager. This duly arrived a day later, which seemed to be grudgingly given, and only further shamed Liverpool FC.

The other recent case involves the Chelsea and (then) England captain, John Terry over racial abuse allegations to a Queens Park Rangers black player, Anton Ferdinand, which have landed Terry in court on a racially-aggravated public order offence. Terry, like Suarez, insists he is innocent, and his club have backed him, in a similar way to Liverpool did with Suarez.

When the court case was put back until the close of the football season in July, at the behest of Chelsea, with presumably Terry’s agreement, the FA in a rare moment of decisiveness stripped him of the England captaincy. They were worried, quite correctly in my view, that it would not be appropriate for the team captain to be under the shadow of racist allegations. The only mistake the FA made was not to remove Terry from the team altogether. The decision did though lead to the resignation of the team manager, Fabio Capello, in what he said was too much interference in his running of the team.

Much was made by Capello and Terry, that Terry is ‘innocent until proven guilty’, and in law this is indeed the case. But it was Terry and his club that wanted to delay the trial, which otherwise would have taken place in March, and been well out of the way, one way or the other, before the summer’s European Football Championship. So, to my mind the FA had to act to protect the image of the English game.

Who would have thought that football would be the stage upon which the issue of racism would be played out before the nation? And this coming only months after Sky Sports commentators Andy Gray and Richard Keys were sacked for making sexist remarks about a female assistant referee. English football has come a long way in challenging bigotry, if only they could deal with homophobia in the same enlightened fashion.

Counter Power: Making Change Happen by Tim Gee

If you've ever stood on a windy street corner handing out leaflets to disinterested shoppers, or traipsed from Embankment to Hyde Park Corner and found yourself wondering “What am I doing here? How does this help further the cause to which I am committed?”, then this is definitely not the book for you. In fact, it's hard to know exactly who this book is for. It's not really political theory, because there isn't much theory in it. It isn't really practical tips for organisers either, because most of the examples which occupy so much of the book don't apply to capitalist democracies like Britain. There is little attempt to evaluate either tactics or overall strategies.

Gee asserts the legitimacy of 'counterpower', by which he means popular dissent and protest, then categorises it into Ideas Counterpower (conventional campaigning such as leaflets, petition and media strategy), Economic Counterpower (strikes and boycotts), and Physical Counterpower (everything from non-violent demonstrations to insurrections). He then spends the bulk of the book describing various popular struggles at considerable length, including the movement for independence in India, the campaign against the Vietnam War in the US (with walk-on parts for the UK supporters), and the struggle to overthrow Apartheid in South Africa in terms of the categories he has created.

The end result is a sort of relentlessly cheerful history of protests movements, with most of the politics taken out. There is no indication that either the anti-war struggle in American or the overthrow of Apartheid owed anything to the global balance of forces; the USSR may have been a really rotten model for how to construct an alternative society, but there can be little doubt that its military and geopolitical strategy in the Cold War acted as a brake on American power. But this does not even appear to have crossed Tim Gee's mind.

If you don't know anything about the history of protests around the world, you could do worse than read this book. But if you really want some strategic direction about how to make change happen, you'll have to look elsewhere.

Written by Jeremy Green
Haringey Green Party