Six shiny things

• Mark Steel is blogging on that pesky IDF.
  
  
• I note the latest project from Dawn Foster, documenting the things people shout at her whilst on her bike. 101 Wankers.
  
  
• Meanwhile the Guardian had a great piece on cycle safety.
  
  
• Luna17 asks how do we stop the cuts?
  
  
• I thought this post from Bob looked really interesting on Folk Marxism, but I need a bit more time to digest it.
  
  
• Lastly I was disappointed to see that the new Sherlock Holmes is not living up to expectations. Madame Miaow writes a very clear piece on lazy racism and lazy writing.
  

Who is running for the Green Party executive?

I've just finished putting together the hub page for the Green Party national executive (GPEx) elections where you can read the candidate statements from the small, select band of hopefuls. You can see it in its full glory here and you never know, it might tempt you to stand.

My comparison chart of the deputy leader candidates here. Derek Wall now has a site for his deputy leadership campaign here and Adrian and Caroline have their's here.

You might also like to know that the party will be conducting an online hustings for the leadership candidates. Submit your (single) question to ero@greenparty.org.uk clearly marked 'Hustings question' in the subject header.

In the run up to September's conference a bit of a pre-conference discussion has started up and I thought I'd highlight a few of the posts I've spotted before finding time to contribute myself. Do let me know if I've missed any out.

• Earlier tonight Peter Cranie posted on the leadership election.
• Rupert Reed has two pieces on Bright Green Scotland one on where we go from here the other on building the membership.
  
• Tom Chance writes on turning green shoots into roots.
• Doc Richard talks about restating the political roots of the Green Party.
• Jane Watkinson writes on how the Greens must resist mainstream pressures.
  
• On a related note Peter McColl of the Scottish Greens has a piece on campaigning out of our comfort zone.
  

Snippets

Dragging myself away from tweeting for a moment - here's some snips I've snapped;

• Interesting site on the Lib Dems. We didn't vote for this.
  
  
• Truth, Reason and Liberty take a look at urban foxes under threat.
  
  
• Negotiation is over discusses animal rights and the left.
  
  
• Owen has a brilliant post at the Third Estate on why Toy Story 3 is evil. EVIL!
  


• Mark Steel on wiki leaks and being kept in the dark.
  
  
• Sunny posts a teaser trailer for Just Do It - a film about the direct action movement;
  
  

Review: Romanitas

My interest was piqued when I saw a copy of Sophia McDougal's Romanitas in the, soon to be closed, Crofton Park library (thanks Labour Mayor!). Based on the idea of an alternative history where the Roman Empire survived into the 'modern' world Romanitas is one of those fanciful 'what if' novels that can work out so well.

McDougall's writing chipped along nicely enough to keep me reading to the end, but this was despite my better judgement. I was by turns annoyed by the book, then annoyed at my annoyance and then went back to being just plain narked at the wasted opportunity of such a great idea.

The thing is if you're going to imagine a world where we took a different fork in the road you can't introduce things that make no sense, you really shouldn't just import loads of liberal assumptions from today's world because the point is to take us into a world where Roman minds interact with modern technology and you mustn't swap between Romanisation and modern ways of speaking when it suits you, the writing was far too sloppy.

I'm all for suspending disbelief, which is why I felt occasionally churlish for not being too forgiving, but an alternate history that contains magic? I mean why? Can we, in all honesty, say that if the Roman Empire had lasted another millennium and a bit some people would have developed weird powers for no reason, or is the author saying that magic was real in Ancient Rome?

Add to this the magic was basically a lazy device to get the main characters out of fixes and defined every single significant moment of the book. As such every plot turn relies upon the author saying "And poof! they escaped in the nick of time."

I'm all for the fact that there are cars, planes and TV's despite the fact that the industrial revolution may well not have happened under the Roman system. The Romans discarded many technical innovations (like water wheels) because they had no need of them due to the amply available slaves.

Why spend time, energy and resources on labour saving devices when labour is so plentiful and cheap? In this sense Roman society was a profoundly conservative one when it came to technology but not engineering - but transporting Rome to today would make no sense if you then make time stand still so yeah - give the Praetorian Guards rifles, take your best shot.

What does irritate me however was the profoundly liberal view that many of the characters had towards slavery. Certain characters see slavery as a moral ill that can simply be unproblematically disbanded. A potential future Emperor, who hopes to abolish slavery if he ever gets the chance seems to think that slavery is some sort of bad manners and the economic centrality of slavery under Rome is not mentioned even the once.

Personally I think if someone from a powerful family had plans to abolish slavery they might have thought about how this might be done, at least in passing. The fact is that if the Romans at any particular period had decided to do away with slavery their entire economic system would have collapsed and the Empire ceased to exist - anyone who sought to challenge it's existence (almost always slaves) understood that the Empire and slavery were of a piece and inseparable.

However, as it turns out, in the book slaves don't seem to have much of an economic function anyway as the only slaves we seem to come across are runaways. So we don't even have this to help us gain a sense of place. We're certainly given no notion as to why those who oppose slavery do so, or where they get these ideas that are so out of step with mainstream Roman thinking.

Also the research seemed a little sloppy to me. We have crucifixion, the praetorian guard and a bit of poisoning but, it seems to me, that Roman society makes up more than that.

For example one character is put on trial for killing his wife - this means that the status of Paterfamilias must have gone as a husband is no longer entitled to do with his wife and kids as he pleases - no doubt reforms instituted by Sylvia Pankhurstius. Fine, but at least give us a character saying "Oh, you can't do that sort of thing these days!"

If you're in a forgiving mood Romanitas might be tolerable - but then again it might put you out of sorts altogether. I'm not sure I'll be bothering with the sequel Rome Burning, which actually makes me a little sad as, done well, it could have been glorious.

Mixallenious

A mixed pick from the online sweet shop;

• Random Blowe has updates on the Tomlinson case.
  
  
• Luna17 has thoughts on cuts and resistance.
  
  
• Ben Six has an interesting comparison from Iraq's electricity industry.
  
  
• Levenshulme Green Party have begun their journey into the blogosphere.
  
  
• Green Party members might also want to book early for September's conference to get a discount. For the first time ever you can book online!
  
  
• Lastly, I hope Camden Kiwi doesn't mind me sharing this - I wonder if there are other ways of subverting the 'Boris Bike'? Click the ppic if you need to enlarge.

Let them eat cake

Don't really have time to post but am listening to the Any Questions panellists line up to give various versions of 'cut off unemployment benefits - that'll learn 'um'. Not a single member of the panel put the case for why the dole exists, reducing it down to some sort of reward for immorality, which including those on invalidity benefit.

The first point is if you want people to riot, if you want them to rob, if you want them to take up drug dealing make sure you have communities of people with next to no income. Forget being nice to lazy people, or however you want to frame it, think about how safe you'll be in your bed at night.

The dole keeps you safe, cut it off and the crime rate will soar, for everyone.

The second point is if you want your streets strewn with homeless people make sure that anyone who isn't working cannot meet their rent. You might find this is more expensive than the social security bill.

The third point is there are so many myths around how much people are entitled to on the dole. If you're single with no kids you have below subsistence payments. You are not living the life of Riley. Those with kids *are* better off which is only right and proper because a society that allows its children to starve is not worth having. That said they're not living in gold plated mansions either.

The fourth point is the level of unemployment and dole determines the rights and wages of those who are in work. If losing your job is the end of you it means that employers are dictators with carte blanche to bully, to pay the lowest possible wages, to do anything they choose to their workforce. Leaving the morality of that aside this is a recipe for economic disaster.

The last point I'll make is this - and there are so many but don't have time - making the unemployed live in misery does not magically create jobs for them to go to. There is no point pursuing a policy of zero unemployment without a policy to create full employment to match it. This government is committed to laying people off and then beating the victims of that policy.

This knee jerk response of attacking people who claim benefits (who are often fictional tabloid stories anyway) is not big and it isn't clever. It amounts to blaming the victim and does nothing to tackle to causes of unemployment. If any government ever did pursue this kind of approach we would find ourselves making the latest sequel of Mad Max before we knew what had hit us.

Manchester Convention of the Left 24-25 Sept

Just thought I'd flag up an event in late September in Manchester. The Convention of the Left is an initiative that's been going on for a little while now bringing together people on the left and trying to facilitate a bit of conversation between the often fractious and warring left factions.

Rightly it has quite modest aims. It does not set itself up as a new coalition or party of the left, but simply tries to get people in a room with each other and being nice to each other. That's a good place to start I think.

This September will see some speakers like Ian Angus on ‘Climate & Capitalism’, Gregor Gall (strong lefty on industrial relations), John McDonnell MP and Matt Wrack (General Secretary of the Firefighters' Union). However the main session will be an open forum on building alliances against the cuts. Seems sensible and well worth attending.

Visit the website at conventionoftheleft.org for more details. Download the flier here. (Reminded by Liam)

Is Cameron a loud mouth?

David Cameron is in trouble with the former Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, for being direct and clear in his speeches about foreign affairs.

First Cameron called Gaza an "open prison" and then he criticised elements of the Pakistan security services for aiding the UK's enemies in Afghanistan. Miliband described the PM as a "loud mouth" although he made no comment on the content of Cameron's speeches.

We know Miliband would never do such a thing. After all, his tour of duty was not known for either criticising the actions of the Israeli government, no matter how revolting, nor taking an open and honest stance on the Afghan situation - we didn't even need the recent leaks to know that.

Miliband's outburst attacking Cameron is in stark contrast to his mumbled and embarrassed comments during Israel's bombardment of Gaza that had to be wrung out of him, so reluctant was he to use the UK's clout for good.

During the Blair years the fact that business was always done behind closed doors was always made a virtue of so you'd see Blair claiming he was "influencing" Bush behind the scenes as the war machine pushed ever onwards unabated.

Various diplomats have rushed to Cameron's defence saying that direct language can be completely appropriate on the international stage, it's just we haven't seen much plain speaking for the last thirteen years. I think I agree.

For me a bit of honest speaking is just what we need to clear the air after years of manipulation and distrust. A large number of countries do not see the UK as an honest broker and that is unlikely to change if we continue with a Miliband style policy of half-truths, mumbling and blood.

Bits and bobs

• I've only just realised that Kemptown Ben is back to blogging. Hurray!
  
  
• For fans of the Spirit Level you might like to check out the Equality Trust
  
  
• Talking of which be sure to peruse their Wessex chapter's group blog, here.
  
  
• Have you seen this extra-ordinary Lib Dem leaflet? Courtesy of Left Foot Forward.
  
  
• If you don't mind me asking... who made your pants?
  
  
• Natalie is away in France which explains there has been a sudden spurt of Grade A blogging at Philobiblon.
  

Jane Austin's Fight Club

Excellent stuff.



Via F-Word, Via Jezabel

Three quick reminders

First, don't forget you still have a few days to vote in the Total Politics Awards. It's not to be taken too seriously but it's always good to see progressive, lefty, green types do well compared to the buggers of the right. Sorry, that should be bloggers of the right, the buggers.

You need to vote for at least five blogs (or should that be four other blogs?) so if you lack inspiration as to who else to vote for you can check out my list of Green blogs here, and my short list of lefty blogs in the right hand column which includes the likes of AVPS, F-Word, Third Estate, HarpyMarx and Dave's Part - who would all be worth a punt as well.

The second reminder is for Green Party members who I'd like to remind that the GPEx (Green Party Executive) nominations are still open and are, currently, massively skewed towards London residents.

I personally believe it is very important that these elections are all contested so that the party actually gets a choice as to who sits on the executive rather than simply getting lumbered with whoever has a big enough head to put themselves forwards... or to put it another way I think the executive should be decided by more than just who is capable of filling in a form.

I certainly will be voting for most of the seven people who've put their names in the hat so far, it's not their fault others have not put themselves forward - but it's very unhealthy that the party will have so little say over our exec. which essentially eliminates one of the largest mechanisms we have for holding the exec. to account.

It can't be right that the national chair, for example, is an uncontested position when we're in such a new period for the party. Do let me know if you need help or advise about these elections.

Lastly, it was announced today that the police officer who struck Ian Tomlinson from behind,leaving him dead, is to face disciplinary charges for his actions. No one could accuse the Met of rushing into that decision could they?

I mean most employers would probably be irresponsible and immediately discipline a member of staff who assaulted and killed someone while on duty - but the Met is more considered when it comes to this sort of thing and no one should assume that this announcement is in anyway connected to the outrage at the CPS's decision that a jury will not be allowed to judge whether this was murder.

This Friday, the 30th July, there is a lunchtime protest outside the Office of Department of Public Prosecution (Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, SE1 9HS). It starts at noon and it would be a very good thing if we could ensure the DPP is not allowed to forget the public's disgust at their decision.

You may also wish to donate to The Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign. Incidentally this piece by Unity on Liberal Conspiracy is a must read when assessing the gross injustice of the DPP's decision.

Dave and Nick, sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G

David Davis, that well known defender of civil liberties and airfix SAS commando, has dissed the government saying that the Prime Minister and his deputy get on really, really well. Apparently that's a bad thing.

Davis told "businessmen [sic] during a meeting" that the government was a "Brokeback Coalition", which was a term coined, apparently, by Richard Littlejohn. Waaa- Waaa- Waaa ALARM BELLS!

Quite what the Tories have to complain about I'm not sure. In terms of policy they are basically having it all their own way. Perhaps there are less top jobs going round the big table, but they've not had to make any ideological sacrifices in order to remain in government.

I guess Davis is just one of those tribalists who hates to share. Perhaps he's an only child.

I do have a question though. I might be being over sensitive or censorious but am I wrong in thinking that Davis' remarks are homophobic?

There are numerous close male friendships depicted in film - the Blues Brothers seems a particularly apt one in the context for example - but in order to find an example of a bad male friendship, one that's too close, Davis goes straight for the gays.

Butch and Sundance, good, Starsky and Hutch, good, Bill and Ted, good, Brokeback Mountain, bad. Why's that then?

Like I say I'm careful of reading too much into this and don't want to get all up in his shit, he obviously would not like that, but I'm right aren't I? He is basically saying calling someone gay is an alternative way of saying they're crap isn't he? Anyway, he obviously longs for the days when the two most powerful men in government hated each others guts. Good times Davis, good times...

Pic credit Lakelander.

Prisons: short blunt shock

The Tory Justice Minister Crispin Blunt was quite right to say that we should lift the blanket ban on parties in prisons imposed by the super-authoritarian Jack Straw. Straw's ridiculous over-reaction was typical of the man who personified Labour's autocratic sledge hammer style.

Sadly Number Ten has over ruled the Justice Minister for fear of looking soft on prisoners. Although he was talking about Labour Blunt could have been talking about Cameron's reaction when he said; "At the slightest whiff of criticism of from the popular press, policy tended to get changes and the consequence of an absurd over-reaction to offenders being exposed to comedy in prison was this deleterious, damaging and daft instruction."

Quite what is happening in the Tory Party on prisons I'm not sure. First you have Ken Clarke saying that prison doesn't particularly work and now Blunt hints that a more relaxed regime might help with rehabilitation of prisoners. Sadly the party hierarchy has yet been won over to a more liberal position.

Interestingly Iain Dale came out in defence of Blunt saying; "I hope under a Conservative government that will change. Being tough doesn't just mean locking people up and throwing away the key. A tough politician will take tough choices - and that means locking fewer people up and devoting more resources to preparing prisoners for life on the outside. Only in that way will reoffending rates drop."

While, cynic that I am, I thought Clarke's suggestion might have been about cutting costs rather than addressing our failed and over crowded prison system - but there's nothing in Blunt's suggestions that were about cost cutting and everything about treating prisoners with a bit more humanity.

Ian Tomlinson: police escape prosecution

We're told today that the police officer who made an unprovoked attack on Ian Tomlinson from behind will not face prosecution. This is, we are told, because of the conflict between the two postmortems.

The first autopsy exonerated the police and claimed he had not been attacked and died of a heart attack, the second was conducted after witness statements and video footage came out showing that he had been attacked and said he had died of internal bleeding.

The police lied and lied again to cover up the actions of their officers - and on this occasion were caught out time and time again. How many other autopsies are as keen to deliver a result that the police want over the facts I wonder. Why does the law not see the first autopsy as a scandal?

What I don't understand is this, does the CPS's reasoning make sense even in their own terms? If the postmortems make it difficult to prove a murder charge (and I think we'd all prefer a jury to make that decision not an arm of law enforcement) why does that mean that a lesser charge could not be considered?

We know Tomlinson was the victim of an unprovoked attacked, it's on film from several different angles for a start. We know that Tomlinson was the victim of an attack from behind while he had his head down and his hands in his pockets. He could have done nothing more to pose less of a threat.

Why were lesser charges not being considered?

It turns out it's because the CPS took so long to make up it's mind. They could have brought a charge of common assault within a few weeks of the incident (when the officer finally came forward) but they chose to string it out and once six months had passed no lesser charge could be brought.

At the end of the day if it had been Ian Tomlinson who had attacked a police officer from behind who then died later that day there would have been no question of him escaping prosecution. He'd have been behind bars long ago. What a disgraceful double standard, utterly corrupt.

Nerdism: which party got best value for money in Camden?

After having my appetite whetted by the Camden New Journal the other day I thought I'd take a quick look at the election expenses of the Camden general election candidates. There are two constituencies in Camden Holborn and St. Pancras and Hamstead and Kilburn - both of which were held in the end by their Labour incumbents (cuddly Frank Dobson and thespian Glenda Jackson respectively).

So let's take a quick peek at Hamstead and Kilburn first.

		Total spend	Votes	Pounds per vote
Lab	Glenda Jackson	£27,192.02	17,332	£1.57
Con	Chris Philp	£39,739.57	17,290	£2.30
LD	Ed Fordham	£29,418.83	16,491	£1.78
Green	Beatrix Campbell	£810.38	759	£1.07
UKIP	Magnus Nielsen	£459.99	408	£1.13
BNP	Victoria Moore	£400.00	328	£1.22
Ind.	Tamsin Julia Muca Omond	£6,327.62	123	£51.44
Ind.	Generosa Alcantara	£2,360.19	91	£25.94

As you can see this was a hard fought, three way race between the three headed monster of Labour, Tory and Lib Dems. Glenda Jackson won the seat by a whisker no doubt due to "finally understanding the need to fund raise" as her charming election agent put it in an email available in the election returns. I didn't know you could slag off your candidate in your official returns - this opens up all sorts of possibilities!

Chris Philp was literally a couple of hundred quid away from the legal limit despite splitting numerous leaflets and items of expenditure between the Parliamentary and council elections. Let's hope he didn't make any accounting errors! One slip and it's chokey for Philp :)

Over all the candidates you can see the Greens had the best value for money with Beatrix Campbell who was "essentially a paper candidate" according to Tamsin Omond. And fair enough, that's true - still more than a pound per vote though due to one freepost leaflet.

The least value for money campaign was Tamsin's who spent three quarters of her campaign fund (all donated by one Poole resident) on her office. Over fifty quid per head is a bit rich - she might have been better off handing out tenners, if by better off we mean jailed for electoral fraud.

Now we come to Holborn and St. Pancras.

		Total spend	Votes	Pounds per vote
Lab	Frank Dobson	£22,752.27	25,198	£0.90
LD	Jo Shaw	£17,190.14	15,256	£1.13
Con	George Lee	£28,283.59	11,134	£2.54
Green	Natalie Bennett	£10,895.48	1,480	£7.36
BNP	Robert Carlyle	???	779	???
UKIP	Max Spencer	£166.00	587	£0.28
Ind.	John Chapman	£519.79	96	£5.41
Eng Dem	Mikel Susperregi	£1,900.00	75	£25.33
Ind.	Iain Meek	£9.50	44	£0.22

Once again we see that Labour ran the best value for money campaign at just ninety pence per vote and the Tories struggled the hardest to win over voters. It will come as no surprise to locals that George Lee spent a large sum of money on his campaign with paid delivery and glossy leaflets the wealth was there for all to see, and no doubt abhor.

The Green's Natalie Bennett was a higher profile candidate than Bea Campbell, hence the higher spend. This was partly down to the fact that we hoped to win council seats - sadly the London effect left us with just one Camden councillor and the election spend had less direct impact on votes than we'd hoped. Move away now, there's no euphemism to see in this paragraph!

The award for best value for money goes to Iain Meek whose photocopying bill of £9.50 sees an admirably low carbon footprint campaign that spent just 22 pence for each of his 44 voters. If we forget about the five hundred pound deposit he lost, not included in the expenses, it sounds quite worthwhile.

The English Democrats probably misjudged their own demographic by running a Greek candidate which may well explain the fact they spent more than twenty five quid for each vote they received. Ouch. It's not fair really because the leaflets were hilarious.

One thing you wont see from these numbers is that in the 'short campaign' the Lib Dems spent more than any other party as they suddenly poured money into this unwinnable campaign overcome by Clegg-mania. Distributing leaflets with slogans like "Did you see the debate?" turned out to be a colossal waste of money as people had seen the debate and decided to vote Labour.

One last point, the election expenses of the far right (the absence of returns for Holborn not withstanding) show that it was right to ignore their lacklustre campaigns as the far right themselves had made no commitment to these elections. The best work against the fascists in constituencies like this is, in fact, to build the alternatives rather than to spend time asking people not to vote for candidates who most people wont know are even standing.

At this election the anti-fascist campaigns admirably mirrored the BNP's targeting strategy putting in the work where they were a threat and ignoring areas like Camden where there was little chance of them gaining a credible vote or, as it turns out, even campaigning.

Interview: AVPS's Phil on being a new Labour recruit

I'm becoming increasingly interested in Labour's membership surge in the wake of the new coalition government. On the spur of the moment I decided to ask Phil, long-time lefty from the blindingly delightful AVPS blog, a few questions on how he's finding his new home - Stoke Labour Party.

• Do you feel there's space for you to make an individual contribution?

It depends what you mean by contribution. In terms of an activist contribution, then yes. Our CLP has effectively been run down over a period of years and has recently undergone a split. So there is plenty of space for people with an activist conception of politics to get stuck in.

If by contribution you mean being listened to and taken seriously by other, longer standing members then the answer to that is yes as well. I haven't hidden my politics from anyone. People know until recently I was active with the Socialist Party, and some have proven curious about how we organised things there and how that experience can be applied here.

To be honest, any half decent ward branch and CLP should be able to accommodate the experience and energies of those who cut their teeth in the far left and/or other radical political traditions.

• Do you feel there's space to influence your local branch from the left?

Yes, and in a modest way I already have done. The bottom line for any socialist not involved in one of 57 varieties of party-building is to spread socialist politics the best they can and encourage "normal workers" to get involved in political activity.

At our annual general meeting just over a month ago I was elected the CLP's political education officer. Some might see this as an opportunity to lecture the membership on their hobby horses once a month, but I don't. I outline what I think can be done in the role here.

The first thing I did as PEO was to organise a monthly political discussion in my ward branch on a topic of members' choice (readers familiar with the SP and SWP will know the deal). The first discussion? 'Is socialism out of date?' In addition to this, I put together a monthly report every CLP member gets to see. This is an opportunity to plug a few hobby horses and introduce members to decent political writing they may have otherwise missed. But I am balanced and draw attention to pieces from all wings of the labour movement.

I've also been elected the trade union liaison officer. I intend to use this position to encourage the sizable number of local affiliated union branches to send representatives to our meetings and encourage them to become more involved in the political process. While it is true the upper echelons of the party have treated unions with barely-concealed contempt since Blair captured the leadership in 1994, the failure of unions to not properly use the thousands of links they have with party organisations did nothing to strengthen their hand when it came to confrontations with the previous government and local authorities. A politicised trade union movement active inside the party it founded is the best way of insuring the sorts of neoliberal excesses we saw in the Blair/Brown years are avoided in future.

• Is there an active membership to engage with?

Yes, there is. In the SP you had the inactive members, the comrades who'd infrequently attend meetings, and those who would attend and do the bulk of the work. There's a similar pattern to local Labour membership, though as you would expect the numbers are bigger for all three categories. My CLP's new executive has an activist conception of politics and are looking at ways of encouraging the bulk of the membership to become more involved in party work. Part of the PEO role is making this point of view part of the CLP's common sense too.

During the election we spoke to people who'd never been canvassed by Labour activists before, despite Stoke Central being a stronghold since the year dot. That, frankly, is a scandalous situation and one we're still in the process of rectifying.

• Do you feel membership is affecting your own political positions?

No I don't. But I cannot give a solid guarantee this will always be the case.

It's a basic truism of Marxism that social being conditions consciousness. You only have to look at the numerous examples of militants who've entered Labour and come out the other end with knighthoods and gongs to prove this. It wasn't because they lacked sufficient will power or didn't have enough Bolshevik iron in their souls: it was years of commitment to electoral politics around ever narrower definitions of 'what is possible' that did the job.

Now I'm in the Labour Party and know I will be constantly exposed to the same processes I cannot say, hand on heart, it will have no effect on me. But at least in my case there are things about my political activity that can shield me from this.

First there is my existing politics - 17 years of professing Marxist views in circumstances one could hardly describe as "germane" do not pass quickly. Second, among my closest comrades are a group of ex-SP'ers who've come to similar conclusions about Labour as I have. Third, I write left wing political stuff on an (almost) daily basis and mainly read the blogs of like-minded folk. Fourth, I do work outside the Labour party too. And lastly, I am conscious of the "moderating" influence Labour politics has had on others and could have on me.

I'd like to thank Phil for his interesting and honest responses.

Is deception rape?

This is one of those stories which, when I first saw it, I thought it could not possibly be true - and then all the news agencies started reporting it.

The BBC reports that Sabbar Kashur, who has been under house-arrest for two years was sentenced to a further 18 months in jail for "rape by deception".

The pair met in Jerusalem and had sex that day. The woman later discovered that the man who had introduced himself as "Dudu", which is a nickname commonly used by Jews, apparently, is an Arab and was not interested in a serious relationship. He denies ever having said he was Jewish and that his nickname is one used by his friends and family, although he may not have helped his case when he said "My wife even calls me that".

In the court's ruling the judge, Zvi Segal, wrote: "If she had not thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious relationship, she would not have co-operated."

"The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price - the sanctity of their bodies and souls," the court judgement was quoted as reading.

I think that there's some really odd language going on there. Shall we start with "co-operated" when they mean "enthusiastically fucked him"? It looks to me that the judge is saying that women's role in sex is to passively allow men to have their way with them - otherwise how do you explain all this "sanctity of their bodies and souls" business?

I suspect the extraordinary judgement and sentence are a product of a revulsion on the part of the law that a Jewish woman was defiled by an Arab man, who is defined as a "smooth-tongued criminal" on the basis that he had consensual sex with a Jew whilst in possession of an Arab penis.

Neither side disputed that this woman met a guy she fancied and they decided to have sex on that first meeting. I don't think I'm being overly controversial by saying if you have sex with someone the first time you meet them it's quite likely that you don't know them very well and that it should not entirely surprise you if your new romance does not necessarily blossom into a life-time's love match.

If you only want to have sex with people who want to have a long-term relationship with you I advise a bit of differed gratification. If you don't mind having sex with people you may never meet again feel free to fuck on first meeting. Fill your boots, as it were.

That's fine and dandy, why should we know someone well if we want to have sex with them? We shouldn't be surprised though that a one-night stand did not end in either a serious long term relationship or that the other person wasn't 100% honest. A reasonable person would not expect to know someone well enough on first meeting to know whether they are an honest person.

A serious jail term isn't the appropriate response here.

Ethically it is quite possible this man hid the "shameful" fact that he's an Arab and was wrong to do so. He certainly hid the fact he was married. That pales in comparison to the ethics of having someone you were, up to that point attracted to, sent to jail when you find out they are an Arab. There are no Israeli Jews getting sent to jail for having affairs.

The "victim" in this case is someone who made a judgement call she later regretted - nothing more. That is her responsibility and no-one else's, and she certainly was not raped. If she'd made an error of judgement and found herself in a position where she was forced to have sex against her will, that would have been his responsibility and a (far longer) jail sentence would have been appropriate, but the undisputed facts show she wanted to have sex and approached Dudu with that in mind.

We cannot start having such a broad definition of rape that the seriousness of the crime becomes diluted by this sort of case.

Moreover the law should not be used to regulate our personal lives in this way. I'm certain that the fact that this man was an Israeli Arab is more than just an incidental fact here, but even if it wasn't the law's still wrong.

High Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein said a conviction of rape should be imposed any time a "person does not tell the truth regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman, and as a result of misrepresentation she has sexual relations with him."

Well hold on, isn't this tantamount to criminalising adultery? In fact it criminalises all sorts of commonplace situations.

What if I don't mention my criminal record, or my model train collection or my secret desire to be rithlessly flogged with liquorice bootlaces? All things that might make a new lover regret having got involved in the first place. Under this definition any of these could find someone locked up and that has to be wrong.

Without going into too much detail I've had sex with women who, it turned out, had not been wholly truthful about themselves. Did these women rape me? No, of course not, jail would be a bizarre response. Were they unethical to be less than honest with me? I suppose so, but the law is not there to turn us all into saints - that's setting the bar unreasonably high.

This kind of paternalist attitude towards women's sexuality is not healthy and tends towards the idea that women are possessions that men must take good care of. We all make mistakes that we later regret, but when the state steps in to legislate the nuances of sexual relationships we're in very dangerous territory, all the more so when it becomes a crime to conceal your Arabic decent (although this man probably did not do this).

The law is not there to protect us every time we feel hurt or betrayed. It should not treat adults as children, nor should it lock up men for being Arabs.

Six Slinky Links

A quick round up of a few things I've spotted that you might be interested in.

• Cartoonist Alan Moore, whose credits include V for Vendetta and Watchmen is interviewed in the Stool Pigeon. Brilliant, rambling, psychedelic and savage by turns.
  
  
• F for Philistine is keeping her beady eye on the Islamophobes after the French veil ban.
  
  
• The Morning Star interviews Unite's Gail Cartman whose running to lead her union.
  
  
• In Germany something like three million people have been partying on their motorways. I have no idea why, but jolly good!
  
  
• Arizona's racist laws are creating fear and division, according to the Guardian.
  
  
• Meanwhile the Independent looks at a bad week to be a woman.
  

Democracy Turfed Off

It's so long ago it gives me a little warm glow of nostalgia, but time was that New Labour tried to ban the largest demonstration in British history, all for the sake of some grass. No, no, no - not the sort Ministers stuff into their crack pipes, the grass in Hyde Park of course.

The demonstration, which eventually attracted over a million people, making it the largest mobilisation in the history of the UK, was to be cancelled because the grass issue may also mean "People can get crushed, people can break their legs - there are a lot of things that happen at this time of year and it would be very unwise of us to take such a risk" which, as an official statement, reads more like a local mafioso saying "Shop windows can get.... broken... if you're not careful."

This all flooded back to me when I saw that Boris Johnson had made these comments about the eviction of the "Democracy Village" camped outside Parliament. "I think it's wonderful that as a city we can protest. But it is nauseating what they are doing to the lawn."

Quite correctly Johnson has identified that democracy is a lovely idea, but not when it comes at the price of a nice bit of the green stuff. You need to pamper your pampas, after all. (Evening Standard has pics of the great grass massacre, here)

However, while I have little sympathy for the argument that grass has more rights than people, I am slightly more concerned about the rights of individuals to permanently rob everyone else of common land. It's not simply the uber-hierarchical model of moralising protest that Brian Haw typifies, it's also the fact that if you're opposed to, say, privatising public property, you shouldn't then claim personal ownership over common land yourself.

These protesters made the Square unusable for everyone else, and they hoped to do this on a long term or permanent basis. Is that democracy or simply giving yourself property rights over land that was held in common? Is it wrong for the State to sell off public property but ok for a self-appointed group of randoms to rock up and claim our land for themselves?

Even those poor little blades of grass were part of the common treasury until this small squad of elitists squatted on them. I'm not entirely sure I 100% approve.

I'm certainly not saying that these issues are not complex and, usually, require some sort of negotiation but I am saying that democracy is not just about everyone being allowed to do whatever they like, no matter how anti-social.

Manufacturing austerity

There's nothing like an economic crisis to provide excuses for your ideological commitments. The government's announcement that the BBC license fee may be cut is a case in point.

The Tories have long held a grudge against the BBC, because it isn't directly owned by one of their pals (which is why they've scrapped rules saying that newspaper owners can't own TV stations). It's also increasingly clear that whilst many cost cutting measures are taking place under the heading 'tackling the deficit' this really isn't the whole story.

After all why cut corporation tax if your worried about the gap between income and expenditure? Why say you're going to ensure council taxes do not rise unless you want to ensure that councils do not act to create jobs while the national government is slaughtering them?

Jeremy Hunt, the Minister for Culture, simultaneously attacked the BBC's independence and revenue when he said that "There are huge numbers of things that need to be changed at the BBC. They need to demonstrate the very constrained financial situation we are now in."

Surely though Hunt is talking about artificially creating a "constrained financial situation" by cutting their funds? Certainly Hunt is suggesting maximising it. It looks to me like the government is ideologically committed to laying people off.

That's not to say that there is nothing to criticise in the license fee, which is the kind of flat tax that Tories used to like, when it might be fairer to include the BBC's funding in income tax - although there is something to be said for a hypothocated tax if it allows for more political independence.

It's also true that the BBC could spend it's money more wisely. The mega-fees paid to competent entertainers like Graham Norton or Jonathon Ross seems disproportionate when compared to the salaries of other staff members. However, I suspect Hunt is not looking for anything except scaling down of the size of the state broadcaster.

Soon the number of people able to pay tax at all is going to be severely reduced - and where will the deficit be then, hmmm?

Zac Goldsmith interviewed on Channel Four news

This is absolute gold - do watch! New Tory MP Zac Goldsmith was on C4 News to be grilled over his potentially dodgy election expense returns, but in 13 minutes of interview he spends the almost entire time trying to skewer Jon Snow on some minor point of scheduling that no one cares about.

When he does get round to speaking about the issue in hand he utterly bungles it, and it's clear he knows he's on very dodgy ground. In my view he'd have been hard put to come across more like an aristocratic baddie even if he had a duelling scar and a henchman hovering just behind his right shoulder.



Goldsmith is clearly a man who regards the media making legitimate enquiries as total impudence.

JR goes solar?

I've just seen this inspired ad for some US company or other. Ah.... eco-friendly nostalgia.



Glad to know we've got JR on our side...