Interview: Alan Duffell. A Green Mayor for Tower Hamlets

I've been speaking to Alan Duffell, the Green Party's Mayoral candidate for Tower Hamlets. We're asking people to give their first preference to Alan for greater democracy, for a positive vision for Tower Hamlets and for the only candidate who takes climate change and the environment seriously.

D(M): You're standing for Mayor of Tower Hamlets - how did you vote in the referendum and why?

AD: I voted against the position. As a party we weighed up all the pros and cons of the creation of a Mayor and decided that such a position would do more damage to the borough than good. That is still my opinion.

We then had two options - either to disappear into obscurity and try to make our point by heckling at events, or to stand a candidate who pledges to increase democracy and resist centralisation, thereby limiting the scope of the Mayor's position. To that end I pledge to be accountable to the elected Council and reserve my right of Veto only to oppose decisions which explicitly go against Green policy.


D(M): The cuts are set to bite pretty deep. How would you approach the economic situation?

AD: To oppose a coalition making cuts, you must have a coalition organised against those cuts. I would involve the entire Tower Hamlets population in a huge popular campaign to highlight the devastating effects of these cutbacks, and to protest and demonstrate for as long as it takes to get the message across that we are not standing for it. We would involve other boroughs in our efforts to mobilise the population.

We will not be able to save everything of course, but we will ensure that all services are looked at in terms of how we could provide them more efficiently. Norwich City Council's Green group recently pushed for some outsourced services to be brought back in-house, as outsourcing often ends up costing more and offering less flexibility than directly employing the workforce. I would promise a similar review of all of Tower Hamlets' services to identify how best to continue providing them.

I would also accept a considerably lower salary than the amount on offer, and initiate a comprehensive pay review of all the Council's top earners to ensure people are paid a fair but not excessive wage. Some of these savings will go towards ensuring everyone in the Council earns at least the Green minimum wage, and the rest will go towards helping sustain services.


D(M): If you could choose one of your Mayoral policies to get implemented which one would it be?

- To make the Right of Recall and accountability to the Council constitutionally binding. This would permanently limit the power of the Mayor, ensuring that the Council remains ultimately and rightfully in charge of the borough's governance.


D(M): You used to be a member of the Labour Party - why did you leave?

AD: I left because I realised that I was a member out of pure blind loyalty; my family has voted Labour consistently for generations, but I could not carry on supporting a party that has drifted so far from its roots. My decision to leave boiled down to the party's track record of the last 13 years. Whatever the party may now claim to stand for in opposition, the fact remains that Labour in government did not represent those most in need.


D(M): What was the last community event you went to - and what was it like?

AD: On Wednesday 6th October I attended a meeting of The East London Communities Organisation (TELCO). Rather than a hustings, this was a structured meeting where candidates responded to TELCO's wish list from the next Mayor. The wishes included a commitment to meet with TELCO at least twice a year, a promise to promote the London Living Wage (I bettered that with the Green minimum wage!!), expanding the City Safe Havens programme, providing 1,000 work placements for young people in the Council, and allowing community land trusts to acquire land under Section 106 agreements. I agreed to all of these with no reservations, as it corresponded pretty well to Green policy - the 1,000 job promise was in our policy document anyway!

The atmosphere was extremely calm and orderly - I am told this is how TELCO conducts all its business. It is good to see such organised bodies representing residents.


D(M): You work for Transport for London, so maybe you wont be able to answer this one: are the RMT and TSSA right to strike?

AD: The proposed job cuts on the front line will affect the quality of service, and will jeopardise one of the Underground's biggest selling points - staff presence. I for one do not wish us to become another Paris, where staff are very scarce and information is limited. But there is also a safety issue at stake - after the King's Cross Fire in 1987, minimum staffing levels were introduced network-wide, to ensure that all stations had sufficient staff levels to operate safely. In the face of economic pressure, these minimum staffing levels are now being reversed.

In my opinion it is only a matter of time before another accident happens, prompting another inquiry which concludes that staffing levels were inadequate to manage the incident effectively. I would support the strike on the issue of safety, but I think the public needs to be better informed of the dangers of cutting staff numbers, especially as this initial 800 may be followed by considerably more.


D(M): How would you rate this government's performance so far on climate change?

AD: This government is another in a long line that has talked the talk on climate change but done very little to address it. This recession could have been an opportunity to green our economy, just as South Korea did in its last recession, making it more efficient and sustainable whilst providing roughly a million jobs and kick-starting a recovery.

As it is, we have the ridiculous situation where millions sit unemployed whilst this important work goes undone and the country's economy grinds to a halt. No commitment to improving public transport for most of the nation, no commitment to reducing our oil dependency, no efforts to curb flying, apart from the cancellation of Heathrow's third runway (to have been built in a Tory-voting area, of course!).


D(M): You're a TSSA member, which meant you got a vote in the Labour leadership ballot. Did you vote, and if so how?

AD: I voted for Diane Abbott first and Ed Miliband second. This was somewhat tactical, involving the fairly safe assumption that Abbott would drop out in the first round and Ed would pick up her second preference votes. Whilst none of the candidates on offer could really be described as 'progressive', I believe Ed Miliband was the best out of the two front-runners to start shifting the Labour Party away from the super-rich-friendly New Establishment that flourished under Blair. He has his work cut out!

The Mayoral election is next week, and for interest people may like to read Dave Hill's interview with the independent candidate Lutfur Rahman, and Stop the City Airport's review of the Mayoral booklet.

17 MPs vote for a chance for real change.

Yesterday Parliament voted on whether to allow the people to decide on what kind of electoral reform they should go for. The majority of MPs decided to deny people the opportunity to opt for PR and instead instead that the only acceptable change was the dismal AV.

Moving the amendment Caroline Lucas said;

I am pleased to move the amendment that stands in my name and those of the hon. Members for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell). I welcome the fact that the Committee is at long last debating the possibility of a referendum on electoral reform, but it is crucial that the public choose the voting system, not the politicians. We do not often have referendums in this country, and now that we are planning to have one, the least that we can do is give people a real choice on their ballot papers. It is hugely disappointing that AV is the only alternative to first past the post in the Bill. As a result, the Bill fails to live up to the promise of genuine reform and of re-engaging people with the political process.

Amendment 7 is about giving people a real choice of electoral systems, because it is essential that the referendum question is not set up by the politicians to promote their favoured system. Of course, I have my views about which system would be preferable-the Green party advocates the additional member system as the fairest-but our amendment 7 is not about promoting a favourite system; it is about giving the public the options and allowing them to make their own choice. Rather than simply offering a narrow choice between first past the post and the alternative vote system, our amendment widens the question, so that in addition to the AV option, voters are given the opportunity to express a preference for one of the other main voting systems in elections for UK institutions.

There are two parts to our proposed question. The first part asks people whether they want a change from the current, first-past-the-post system; and for those who do, the second part offers the options of the alternative vote, the additional member system, and the single transferable vote, to be listed in order of preference. Our amendment is needed, because it is contradictory for the coalition to be talking about electoral reform while seeking to offer little more than a Hobson's choice, between AV and first past the post.

You can read the rest of the debate here.

Of the seventeen MPs who voted for the amendment we have a broad range of parties;

Long, Naomi (Alliance)

Mr Douglas Carswell (Con)
Evans, Jonathan (Con)
Hollobone, Mr Philip (Con)

Lucas, Caroline (Green)

Dakin, Nic (Labour)
Smith, rh Mr Andrew (Labour)
Austin Mitchell (Labour)

Llwyd, Mr Elfyn (PC)
Williams, Hywel (PC)

Durkan, Mark (SDLP)
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair (SDLP)
Ritchie, Ms Margaret (SDLP)

Hosie, Stewart (SNP)
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (SNP)
Weir, Mr Mike (SNP)
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh (SNP)
Wishart, Pete (SNP)

Hmmm... there seems to be a party missing here. One party doesn't seem to have provided even a sinlge rebel in favour of giving the public the choice of PR. I'll give you a clue which one - their policy is for PR.

Bits and bobs

Today's selection of pieces from the internet.

• I'm really pleased to see Caroline Lucas and 47 other MPs have signed EDM 767 on Science is Vital.
  
  
• Audio report on the European Greens summit which pushes it's 'new' platform of the "Green New Deal".
  
  
• It appears that Sarah Palin is losing favour in the Tea Party movement.
  
  
• Ally Fogg praises Emma Goldman.
  
  
• The Guardian asks why old buildings are lovely and new ones nasty. My answer is that we bulldozed the slums so the nice stuff survived and, actually, the best modern architecture is bloody gorgeous.
  
  
• In another example of how shit everything is apparently the BBC is rewriting Doctor Who's history in order to extend the franchise.

And lastly, the saga and background of Hackney's CLR James library.

Greens take Wellington

In a dramatic neck and neck finish Green Party councillor Celia Wade-Brown has won the Mayoralty of Wellington, the capital of New Zealand.

On Friday night at close of counting there was just 40 votes between her and incumbent right wing Mayor, Kerry Prendergast, with Prendergast in front. Counting was then suspended while the 'special votes' came in (votes from embassies, delayed postal votes and others).

The final vote today, Wednesday, was 24,881 to Celia and 24,705 to Kerry.

This comes on top of an already good set of results in the local elections across New Zealand for the left and for the Greens, although it's beyond me to do the number crunching because candidates don't use party descriptions, making a proper analysis the preserve of those with a far more in depth knowledge of local politics than I have.

Prendergast was running for her fourth term as Mayor and had a generally good reputation, which made her a tough opponent to beat. In Celia's victory speech she described her success as "the ongoing evolution of Wellingtonians' existing commitment to a resilient, cosmopolitan and beautiful city, a continuation of some trends to a cleaner ocean, renewable energy and protected biodiversity, and definitely a city where there are quality jobs and worthwhile businesses."

The broad based campaign which focused on transport, technology and communities drew in activists and organisers well beyond the Green Party itself. She also said that her election showed "the Greens can be a credible force in governing communities".

Guest post: The case against elected police commissioners

For a while now I've been in two minds about elected police commissioners so when I saw Brighton and Hove Greens had come out against them I immediately thought to get blogging councilor Jason Kitkat to write a guest post which, I think, raises some really useful and interesting points.

Greens in Brighton & Hove are opposing the introduction of a directly elected police commissioner for Sussex Police. Why? Surely we support democracy and public accountability... don't we?

Indeed we do, but there are many ways to deliver a public service whilst holding it accountable to the people it serves. I think an unfortunate aspect of the debate is that too many people are unfamiliar with how police forces are currently run. I must admit that I too was blissfully unaware until I was elected a councillor.

But without that knowledge of what we have now, comparisons are difficult. When contrasted with what many assume to be a faceless bureaucracy, of course an elected commissioner sounds positive. Yet police forces are already accountable to independent police authorities. In the case of Sussex Police it answers to Sussex Police Authority. This body is made of elected councillors and independently appointed members including local magistrates. The councillor membership of the authority follows proportionality rules so, as best as is possible, the seats must be divvied up to match the political representation on the local authorities in Sussex.

It's not perfect, but the authority's makeup does ensure a semblance of diverse representation for the communities Sussex Police seek to represent. Just as a local council does, the authority has committees and budget votes. These are open to the public and are webcast.

With a single directly elected commissioner many of the arguments Greens have used against directly elected local authority mayors hold true: Decision making will be less open, less accountable and there will be far fewer opportunities for a plurality of opinions to be heard.

Cllr Ben Duncan is the only Green on Sussex Police Authority, but his distinctive perspective has undoubtedly had a positive impact in winning commitments for more neighbourhood policing, more sustainable ways of working, for a different approach to policing hunts and much more.

The idea of directly elected police commissioners is one both Labour and Conservatives have borrowed from the American political system. There are many things to admire in the US constitution, but the results for everyday quality of life have been, at best, mixed. Indeed one could argue there has been too much of a good thing. Voters are asked to elect school commissioners, police chiefs, judges, municipal councillors, senators, congressmen, state governors, state secretaries of state and so on. Turnout levels in the US are incredibly low. I have often heard it said that in the US there are probably too many elections and too many things to vote on. Whether or not that is true, there's no evidence to show that simply having a directly elected head of the police makes any positive impact.

Some argue that we should oppose commissioners because 'undesirables' (I assume the BNP and such like) might win some elections for police commissioners. I don't believe that's a fair argument against commissioners, though the detail of the electoral system proposed is something I have yet to see mentioned. Ultimately I believe that Greens should oppose directly elected police commissioners because they are contrary to green values: They centralise power, reduce the diversity of views, make decision-making less accountable and are needlessly expensive.

What could be done to improve police accountability? We could consider returning control directly to local councils, which would offer a more direct connection with communities and their elected councillors. In the meantime I believe police authorities are a reasonable compromise position, but the authorities must continue to work hard to engage with the areas they represent.

Particularly in these times of austerity, when Sussex Police's Chief Constable estimates elections for a new police commissioner would cost upwards of £1 million, the case has not been made for this change.

Today's Six Links

I'm mind bendingly busy today but I've come across these in the last 24 hours so I'm going to share them come what may;

• The New Zealand local elections were on Friday. We're waiting with baited breath to find out if Green Celia Wade-Brown has won the Mayoralty of Wellington. Meanwhile the Greens are celebrating more generally, after strong results.
  
  
• Andrew Marr has been having a pop at bloggers, Stephen Tall detects a whiff of hypocrisy.
  
  
• Stop the City Airport have a review of the Tower Hamlet Mayoral booklet.
  
  
• Over at Political Dynamite they're discussing how to stop the rise in tuition fees.
  
  
• Dear Unite is following the union's General Secretary candidates.
  
  
• Jennifer Able discusses what it means to have sex work on your CV.

Meg Hillier: proof Ed Miliband doesn't care about climate change

The more I think about Meg Hillier the less I like her, that's nothing to do with her attitude to foxes mind. Nothing personal, I'm sure she loves kittens and can make a crying baby sleep at fifty paces but, as the main person responsible for holding the Coalition to account on climate change she is the just the wrong choice. 

Yesterday I posted a link to the new shadow Minister of Energy and Climate Change's Public Whip account which shows her woeful voting record. Stuart has summarised it here.

To summarise Stuart's summary it appears that she's voted against improvements in housing energy use efficiency, she's voted against limiting civil aviation pollution, was for Heathrow's expansion, in fact according to Public Whip she has a poor voting record on the issue for a Labour MP, let alone compared to the Tories, et al.

Don't worry though, she's 100% for nuclear power. That will sort things out. 

Today the Guardian summed up her record so far like this;

As for the real Meg Hillier, she's not known to have had a deep interest in climate change. A former journalist (like climate secretary, Chris Huhne) and privately educated (like Huhne), she was elected for the first time in 2005 as MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch, having been mayor of Islington and a member of the London assembly. Probably most useful for her new job among her interests are the work she has done on housing and transport (well, bus routes). In government, she spent a year working for Ruth Kelly at the Department of Communities and Local Government, then three as a Home Office minister juggling the identity card hot potato.

Just checking to see if she has any interest in climate change...

Yup. That checks out then.

So we've been told that Ed Miliband was the best candidate on climate change, but if that's the case why has he appointed someone who has no interest in climate change to shadow the issue? What possible justification could there be for appointing someone who votes against climate change measures to spearhead your approach to climate change?

The best Simpsons intro ever

It was only by chance I bothered watching this Simpsons intro by Banksy. Do watch it, and do keep watching it to the end. Not for the faint of heart.

Science is vital

The Liberal Democrats and their coalition partners are embarking on a large number of cuts, as we know. We also know that these cuts will significantly effect almost every aspect of government spending - and many of these cuts will, in fact, be false economies that end up leaving us far worse off financially than if we'd left the investment in place.

You can see this extremely clearly with the cuts to science funding (eg Doc Richard) which doesn't just undermine the UK's ability to rake in Nobel Prizes, it also undermines our ability to capitalise and build on scientific research that is done all around the world. It will place us, economically, in a massively disadvantaged position for a generation if we allow these cuts to take place.

Vince Cable may think there is a sharp dividing line between the economically profitable bits of science funding and the esoteric mind-bending theoretical stuff, but in the medium and long term you need deep thought as well as work on more efficient micro-processors because the dividing line between the two is not as strong as you might at first think.

More than that if we are to move to a more ecologically sustainable society new technologies are going to be absolutely at the heart of that. Not because we can carry on as normal with a few funky gadgets but because if we don't develop viable energy alternatives to coal, for example, then we simply don't have a hope of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions either quickly or substantially enough.

CASE and the science is vital campaign is part of that fight to prevent the science cuts, although am I alone in thinking that Patrick Moore's claim to "support the Science Is Vital campaign 200%!” is not the most well judged way of expressing his support for scientific endeavor!

Certainly I think it would be great if readers asked their MP to sign EDM 767 on the need to safeguard scientific research funding, as well as signing this petition yourselves. You might also like to attend the lobby in the House of Commons tomorrow (Tuesday) 3:30 – 4:30pm in Committee Room 10.

Enviro-Misc

A few links, this time with a greenish theme;

• Conservative MP Tim Yeo warns against the cuts in green funding. Guardian.
  
  
• Meg Hillier MP is Labour's new Shadow Climate Change bod. Let's look at her voting record... oh for fuck's sake! Public Whip.
  
  
• The people of Leith are fighting Big Biomass. Bright Green.
  
  
• Welcome to a new blog just one post old. Stroud Potato Day.
  
  
• There are plenty of people round the world opposing environmental degradation, including the Indigenous Environmental Network. Stuart Jeffrey.
  
  
• Are Ed Miliband and David Cameron really that different? Jane Watkinson
  

Where's this fresh new Labour Party then?

Personally I think Labour is going through a bit of an opposition bounce. They seem happier in themselves now they're not in charge of any wars or recessions, which has resulted in a detectable spring in their step in some quarters. Also some voters who had strayed from the fold seem to be tentatively returning to their old pastures.

I'm not detecting any specific Ed Miliband bounce though among party members, which is hardly surprising as he wasn't the members' choice for leader.

During the leadership election there weren't many highs or interesting points, but one of them was certainly Ed Balls' clarity over taking a new direction on the economy. I have many critical things to say about the man, as we'll come to, but I think he showed himself to be both an articulate and passionate advocate for a more left field economic strategy.

He seemed to want to put investment in public services and protecting ordinary people from these devastating cuts before this imaginary 'need' to cut the deficit right down, right now. I even developed some respect for the man. I think we can do much better, but he won a great deal of respect from former critics for his robust and brave approach which cut against the Westminster consensus.

Sadly, his virtues were seen as vices to the new leader, and having outlined an entirely different economic approach to New Labour's coy 'not quite so hard, not quite so fast' rhetoric Miliband was in a position where he either appointed Balls as shadow treasurer and adopted his position, or appointed someone entirely unBallslike in his stead in order to keep ploughing the same furrow. Miliband chose the steady option with Alan Johnson.

So where to put him?

Having refused to place the best candidate for chancellor in the shadow chancellor slot he faced a new problem - where to put Balls that was high enough that it didn't look like a purge of his rivals but where Balls could not pronounce on the economy. The Home Office.

Sadly Ed Balls is bloody awful on immigration and has a track record that would make any decent person blush on the issue. During the leadership race he raised the 'immigration problem' more than once and came up with such delightful ideas of preventing 'remittances', where immigrants send money home to their families living in poverty, which would directly result in misery in some of the poorest communities on Earth.

So now not only has Ed Miliband in one stroke refused to take a more left leaning approach to the economy he's appointed one of the most anti-immigrant Labour candidates to make pronouncements on immigration. Where's Miliband's fresh new approach?

To make matters worse Phil Woolas, who is utter scum, and has been at the forefront of Ministerial racism for some time has been appointed to hold Balls' coat while he kicks the heads of migrant workers. The man should have been expelled from the party years ago, not rewarded with a shadow cabinet post.

What a disgrace that Ed Miliband has taken a conscious choice not just to reject fresh new thinking on the economy, but has embraced two of the least deserving MPs to become his spokespersons on immigration. Not just old thinking, but some of the most backwards and rancid old thinking you can find.

Pick and mix

I'm just reeling from Ed Miliband's decision to appoint Ed Balls as Shadow Home Secretary. I mean during the leadership election Balls showed himself to be strong on the economy and truly poor on immigration - so what does the face of 'we're not New Labour anymore' do? Reject a progressive economic strategy in favour of victimising immigrants. Balls.

Anyway, to business;

• Ben Six has asked me to highlight this Scottish Parliament petition to hold an independent inquiry on the Lockerbie bombing. I'm happy to oblige.
  
  
• Left Foot Forward have put together an interesting document on the internet and the election here (pdf).
  
  
• I've just been looking at a new political site called Whistle. Interesting?
  
  
• Is this the greenest government ever. Let's wait for Oct. 21st and see.
  
  
• Dr Petra reminds us that science is vital.
  
  
• Kate Belgrave writes of her average life as an average whore.

Labour's shadow cabinet

So, the results for Labour's shadow cabinet are in. Let's take a look at the winners.

Yvette Cooper	232 votes
John Healey	192 votes
Ed Balls	179 votes
Andy Burnham	165 votes
Angela Eagle	165 votes
Alan Johnson	163 votes
Douglas Alexander	160 votes
Jim Murphy	160 votes
Tessa Jowell	152 votes
Caroline Flint	139 votes
John Denham	129 votes
Hilary Benn	128 votes
Sadiq Khan	128 votes
Mary Creagh	119 votes
Ann McKechin	117 votes
Maria Eagle	107 votes
Meg Hillier	106 votes
Ivan Lewis	104 votes
Liam Byrne	100 votes

Yvette Cooper in top? Who'd have thought it, and I've not even heard of John Healey the guy who strolled in at second place. All in all a pretty Blairite bunch. People who supervised ID cards, or were gung ho for war - but some names are less worse than others, I'll concede that. Still, it doesn't feel like moving on really.

I'm unsurprised that Abbott, with 59 votes, was not in the list although Peter Hain who missed out by just 3 votes was a bit of a shock. The fact that Shaun Woodward did not make it is unsurprising, but I thought David Lammy might have edged in. At least he got plenty more votes than Stephen Twigg.

Cooking the history books

We all know that Captain Cook discovered Australia, after all if he didn't how would the Aborigines have know that's where they lived? One little detail that they neglected to teach me at school though were some of the facts around his death.

I remember very clearly my teacher saying that this learned explorer was attacked and killed by vicious savages armed with spears. Nasty. Didn't they know he was famous and civilised? What I hadn't realised until this week is that Cook had basically brought his demise upon himself.

The Hawaiians had initially greeted Cook and his men as welcome guests, possibly even gods depending on who you listen to. However when one of Cook's small boats was taken for a joy paddle by locals he became so angry he decided the best course of action was to kidnap the King, as you do. This was a cheery chap named Kalanimanokahoowaha, who should not be confused with any of the other notable Kalanimanokahoowaha's littering our history books.

During the attempted kidnapping Cook took a spear in the back and expired. There's a great deal of literature about how he may have come at the wrong season or got mixed up in the local religion which meant the natives were unduly restless but it seems to me that there is a far more logical explanation.

The Hawaiians had a very different understanding of ownership resulting in the theft, but had a very European reaction to the idea that strangers can rock up out of nowhere and start kidnapping royalty. I'm not sure the seasons or their innate savagery had much to do with it.

Try kidnapping Obama because some unknown American has pinched your wallet and see what happens.

Far from being the savage and cruel buggers my school history teacher had made them out to be it seems to me it was Cook who behaved like a murderous, thieving law unto himself and he was on the receiving end of a perfectly understandable use of lethal force for his troubles.

The whole story speaks far more to the violence and obsession with material goods of European society than it does to any particularly barbarous character of the Hawaiian peoples. No wonder they had to rewrite history.

A bit of catching up

A few notes and nibs catching up on stories I've already covered or bits and bobs I'd like to highlight;

• Following on from the Latin America elections stories we have the Peruvian elections where women of the left did very well. The Economist.
  
  
• The social movements of Paraguay are speaking out against the recent 'coup attempt'. War on Want.
  
  
• I did a quick magazine interview the other day and they've published an extract on their site. Total Politics.
  
  
• I've talked a lot about police violence in the past, and it still hasn't stopped. Ben Solah.
  
  
• I've said it before and I'll say it again, Boris Johnson will be hard to beat in London. Liberal Conspiracy.
  
  
• The nature of modern democracy can often leave a bad taste in the mouth. Nishma Doshi.
  

Top twenty mis-spelt words

According to this these are the top twenty words that are most commonly spelled incorrectly;

1. Separate 2. Definitely 3. Manoeuvre 4. Embarrass
5. Occurrence 6. Consensus 7. Unnecessary 8. Acceptable
9. Broccoli 10. Referred 11. Bureaucracy 12. Supersede
13. Questionnaire 14. Connoisseur 15. A lot 16. Entrepreneur
17. Particularly 18. Liquefy 19. Conscience 20. Parallel

Yup, I pretty much muck all of them up.

Giving the old Evo: The beautiful game

I've always had a soft spot for Evo Morales, President of Bolivia. He's not perfect, but who is? Few can say they've done the same amount to tackle corruption, bring multi-nationals to heel or develop real poverty alleviation in one of the poorest countries on Earth.

This, of course, does not excuse thuggery on the football field.



Here we see Evo, first man of Bolivia, giving what can only be described as a quick knee to the balls of an opponent on the football field - apparently in retaliation for an earlier foul.

Press reports suggest that the man Morales left rolling about on the floor in pain was sent off! I suppose there's no point in being President if you can't do this sort of thing, sigh. To add insult to injury Evo's security team then wanted to arrest the man, but were restrained.

I do like the idea of a football playing President - but I'd rather a clean player with good team building skills than a dirty bugger, quick to apply his studs to an opponent's particulars.

Midnight Misc

It's the middle of the night - but the internet never sleeps and I know you need links!

• Green Tory MP link up in the House of Commons? Excellent.
  
  
• Bright Green Scotland on the government's approach to welfare reform.
  
  
• Jess McCabe muses on warrior queens and political campaigning.
  
  
• Frog Blog has more on Peter Jackson's attitude to unions.
  
  
• Tim Gee asks what the anti-cuts movement learn from the anti-war movement.
  
  
• AVPS has started a new series - hyperbole watch. Excellent.

Brazil keeps to the left

The Brazilian Presidential election yesterday showed that the electorate continues to have a desire for social justice. The fact that the three main contenders were from the Workers Party, Social Democrats and the Greens speaks volumes in itself, showing the demand for addressing the very real problems that still exist after years of the Lula regime.

The Workers Party (PT) received 47%, the Social Democrats took 33% and the Greens (PV) 19%. Looking at the previous election results it's clear that the Green vote has predominantly come from the left and the Social Democrats rather than the PT itself whose vote has shifted by less than 2%. In 2006 the PT received 48.6%, the Social Democrats 41.6%, and the hard left P-Sol 6.9% (who stood but received less than 1% this time round).

Lula's successor for the PT is Dilma Rousseff is a former rebel who was tortured under the dictatorship. She is set to be Brazil's first female President and has a reputation as a hard minded left-winger - although has been criticised as a bureaucrat without Lula's 'common touch'. As a point of interest of the nine Presidential candidates only two were women who both came in the top three places.

The Green Vote

The Greens' Marina Silva achieved a fantastic result gaining almost one in five of the votes. The high point was in the capital itself (called the Distrito Federal) where she gained 41% of the vote to the PT's 31% and the Social Democrat's 24%.

Silva is from a very humble background and she rose to become Lula's Minister of the Environment, quitting the government in 2006 over its poor performance on environmental issues. Although Silva's votes may lean towards the PT in the second round of voting they certainly cannot be taken for granted, despite Rousseff's large lead.

Indeed the Social Democrats had previously offered Silva the role of Vice President and they may well repeat this offer, or possibly offer the position to another high profile Green, Fernando Gabeira. Gabeira, a founding member of the Brazilian Greens, stood for governor of Rio de Janeiro coming second with 21% of the vote.

Shifting left

Radical socialist and former Presidential candidate Heloisa Helena (PSOL) got 16.6% in her senatorial race in Alagoas. PSOL also recieved 14.3% in the governor race in the capital (where the Greens won the Presidential vote).

It seems to me that the vote demonstrates that a great many Brazilians still have sympathy with the aims of the Workers Party but are willing to break towards a more radical alternative where it seems credible. Both Heloisa Helena and Marina Silva were high profile PT members who became left critics. They have carried a substantial personal vote with them that does not necessarily automatically transfer to their parties, which remain minor players in Brazilian politics for the moment.

Where the PT is criticised from the right it is generally from a position of more moderate leftism rather than neo-liberalism although Lula, it should be said, has not been as consistently of the left as many would have hoped. Whether left critics of the government can keep up the pressure and/or build a more viable alternative to the PT remains to be seen.

Certainly on these results it shows that the Greens and the left have an opening, with a new President, to become a major electoral force in Brazil if they can only ensure they become a real force on the ground as well as fielding high profile, well respected critics of the government.

The problem with the games

It seems that every major international sporting event has to have an accompanying hoo ha about chalets without toilets, stadiums without tracks or sites that are essentially just a pile of sand. Of course the London Olympic Games will be different, but all the other events - they're always beset by problems.

However, the real tragedies of these events aren't the escalating costs but the trampling of rights and social justice that takes place. While much has been made of India's inability to put together a decent athlete's village for the Common Wealth Games, much less has been made of the social cost to the surrounding population.

Whether it is the extreme security measures or the fact that all local businesses have been instructed to shut down for the opening and closing of the games. It's not as if they could sell anything to the athlete's or attendees anyway, but to forbid them to ply their normal trade to local residents is a real problem.

There's more though. The consistent use of child labour for example. The safety standards that mean more than a hundred workers have been killed during the construction of the sites. Or students evicted to make way for the games. Time and again it is the power of the state against its people, not on behalf of them.

The cost of the games was over a hundred times the original estimate coming in at over ten billion quid of the Indian government's money when it has so many living in terrible conditions of poverty. Has this money gone to alleviate that poverty perhaps? Well no - it's gone into the pockets of the rich. Less lofty folk have simply found their businesses shut, their homes evicted or worst of all their lives lost.

I know the British Press have only been concerned about how luxurious their own accommodation will be but frankly, there are wider issues. Time and again these vanity events are used to build the prestige of the host government at the expense of their people. It's only two years to go before we get our turn, it may well not be as extreme as in India, but all the same problems will be there.

Tube strike a go go

There's a strike on on the London tube at the moment and, despite having a bit of a panic that I might not get home before it starts I've just about survived the horror of having to take an alternative form of transport.

I know that anything that causes mild inconvenience is always treated as a gross affront to our human rights and anyone exercising their actual human rights is to be automatically denounced as selfish and evil -but somehow I still support the strike.

Is it because I'm a godless communist? Well, yes and no. Certainly being a godless communist helps if you're going to oppose the press, the government, the Mayor of London and just downright, globally accepted, common sense. However, there is some common sense on my side too. Allow me to explain.

The rail unions RMT and TSSA (the latter of which is neither run by nor bossed about by Bob Crow) are staging another 24 hour strike against the proposal to reduce staffing levels on the tube.

Transport for London have called the strikes "pointless" because there are no proposed compulsory redundancies and no threat to staff wages. I'm sure TfL bosses don't do anything that doesn't benefit them directly but tube workers are a better class of person. They are striking for safety, not financial advancement - and frankly I'm not the only person who thinks that protecting safety on the tube is far from "pointless".

If this strike wins it will benefit Londoners in an extremely direct way. Not only will the plans to undermine staffing levels reduce customer service on the tube, making life more inconvenient permanently, not just just for one day - it will also directly cost lives. Maybe someone you know, maybe you or maybe a stranger - but lives none the less.

Once again it is the unions that are the only barrier between the interests of the public and the interests of the wealthy. Once again the press and the government will denounce the strikes, and complain that each strike costs us money... but then that's the only thing that has any point for them, and we have the choice to accept or reject those values in favour of something better.

Bibracte: Memories of a past that didn't exist

It's a strange experience wondering round Bibracte, the ancient Gaulish city that served as a center for much of the south before Julius Caesar stomped his muddy sandals all over the place. For a start it's a huge site that you couldn't possibly cover in a day.

Within the city walls you not only had housing and commerce but they also grow crops and farmed animals - ensuring that under any siege the city could last out almost indefinitely. As a space it sprawls and, unlike Roman towns and cities of the day it sat on top of a set of rolling hills making it difficult to attack, particularly with siege machinery.

So different from Roman towns was it, and its ilk, that the Romans even gave them a specific word, Oppidum.

There's wonderful exhibition in Bribracte which Natalie has reviewed here and the fact you can explore to your heart's content around the part excavated mansions, walls and market places as well as its ancient stones and trees makes it a fascinating place to visit - although a car is absolutely essential.

One of the things that got me thinking about the place though was more tangential. Much of what we see of the distant past is in ruins, half covered with earth and nature, the artifacts of the past are battered, worn and made of stone or metal on the whole as wood, leather and the like have long rotted away.

This skews the way we think of these times in interesting ways. For example I certainly tend to think of Roman structures as pure white, elegantly simple when, of course, we actually know many of them were painted garish colours and/or surrounded by wooden structures or flowing material. The aesthetic look may suit the idea of a long dead past but at the time the living breathing people were having much more fun.

Likewise as I sat having a picnic in the centre of what was Bibracte I was basically sitting in a spooky and empty forest. Combined with the mist it was very easy to imagine a Celtic warrior strolling out of the dark all muscle and hair - but the forest came centuries after Bibracte's decline as a city. When in use it would have been made up of very Roman looking buildings, square stone walls and streets with thousands of people coming and going with their business.

The internal image of the past in my mind's eye is in reality a fantasy, completely unlike the reality of what would have been instantly recognisable as a relative of a modern city. It brings to mind a phrase of Victor Serge when he talked about those separated from us by time as "infinitely like us, infinitely different from us".

These are people who had decent beds, enjoyed a drink, and fell in love. Quite unbarbarian-like they shaved and understood personal grooming in a very modern sense. They also had laws, ethics and spent the majority of their time basically getting along. However, they also sold slaves without a qualm and clearly had a fetish for trepanning (drilling holes in the skull) - if you were transported back in time they'd be things you'd have to get used to.

Gaul was rich, civilised and ordered long before the Romans came, saw and conquered but our vision of the place is distorted by Caesar's history and Roman bigotry as well as the way we inevitably see the past through it's silent ruins not in living, noisy motion. In fact I suspect the ancient Gaul's would be far more familiar to us if we met them face to face than we often believe.

French protests continue: some photos

French protests defending the attack on their pension rights have been continuing today, and for once I was privileged enough to catch the tail end of the demonstration in Paris. Sadly I didn't get there for the main event, but saw the end anyway.

I don't go on holiday very often, but for the last five days I've been away in rural France chilling out, eating cheeses and looking over Roman and pre-Roman archeology. As it happens we were coming back through Paris today, the day of the big mobilisation against the right's attacks on workers rights. I just had to get my camera and check it out.

The Socialist Party (Labour) holding a mini-rally to cheering supporters

Anti-Sarkozy hot dogs were for sale

We stop and harrass some Greens, who in turn were very happy to see us

If you have information on Eric the Worst please call crime stoppers

The CGT, one of the trade union federations in France, were the largest contingent that we saw. All the unions and parties had these hot air balloon things. They all had flags too, which were much cooler.

This man is an angry archeologist.

One union had these equal rights posters.

This sort of thing made me feel at home. Man with home made screed.

Some protesters took a rest break on top of this statue.


I saw a fair few of these for the NPA (New Anti-Capitalist Party) but didn't see a block of them, so this woman dutifully waving her flag will have to represent them all.

I did however see the Lutte Ouvierre (Workers' Struggle) block complete with paper sellers (their hot air balloon is out of shot, but they did have one).

I can't tell you how big the main thing was but I can say that the local papers were covering the event days before Saturday and even in a sleepy and very small rural village we saw a CGT sticker advertising the campaign - so I think it was big, although whether it's big enough to win we shall have to see.

Certainly they are facing the same problems in France as we are here, it's just they're more advanced than we are. They've been able to keep more rights and when they're threatened they're able to mobilise in a very serious way. I'd love to see thousands upon tens of thousands of people wearing TUC stickers denouncing the government's cuts... is it just a dream?

Police attack environmental protesters in Stuttgart

On Thursday police in Stuttgart attacked demonstrators protesting about construction that they claim would cause massive environmental damage in the area. There have been a number of large protests over this in recent weeks, but this is the first to have been so heavily attacked.


Protesters were gassed, beaten and sprayed by water cannons which left, according to Taz, literally hundreds wounded. Britta Haßelmann, a Parliamentary spokesperson for the Greens condemned the attacks warning that the police actions had dangerously escalated the situation.

Dagmar Enkelmann, for the Left Party, said that after the images of so many wounded had come out that we could not continue "with business as usual". The SPD (Labour) spokesperson made a rather strange comment that I'm finding difficult to interpret where he said he felt sorry for the police, although condemned their "Rambo-politics".

Germany is currently being rocked by large scale environmental protests including over proposals to extend the use of nuclear power as well as issues like that of the 'Stuttgart 21' construction.

Pictures from Indymedia

Highlights online

A few scraps of gold from that wonderful place we call the interwebs;

• There's a new group blog launched today, Political Dynamite
  
  
• There is a call for local cuts information at Acacia Thorns
  
  
• Hazel Blears looks like a lying, weaselly, wicked and malicious fool here.
  
  
• Britain's national science academy has released a comprehensive guide on what we do and do not know about climate change.
  
  
• At Better Nation they are talking about art for art's sake
  
  
• Reactions to the news that Ed Miliband is leader of Labour: Salma Yaqoob, Caroline Lucas

Trouble in Ecuador

New austerity laws have left Ecuador rocking with an uprising of the police and army protesting at the withdrawal of their benefits.

Around 150 members of the air force stormed the main airport, other soldiers and police officers set light to tires and began looting while others still confronted the President in a tense stand off at the regimental barracks.

The Guardian reports the President said during the confrontation ""I'm not taking one step back. Gentleman, if you want to kill the president, here he is, kill him if you have the guts." The rebel officers responded with shouts, stones and teargas canisters, prompting Correa's bodyguards to spirit him from the scene."

"The protests were triggered by a law passed by congress yesterday on Wednesday that would end the practice of giving medals and bonuses with each promotion. It would also extend from five to seven years the usual period required for promotions."

The FT reports that later President Correa, who was trapped in a hospital, said “It is a coup attempt led by the opposition and certain sections of the armed forces and police. Whatever happens to me I want to express my love for my family and my homeland.”

They report that "Civil society groups joined the government in vowing to free Mr Correa, before marching on the hospital where he was cornered by protesting police officers."



Some in the government are saying that the majority of the army and police are loyal and a coup is not about to take place, others are beginning to mobilise to prevent a coup. It's certainly true that the President has been attacked and hundreds of armed forces personnel are on the move.

Adam Bandt makes first speech to Australian Parliament

Australia's first Green MP, Adam Bandt, has made his first speech to the Australian Parliament, which you can watch here;

Adam Bandt MP - first speech from Greens MPs on Vimeo.

"Imagine if we reacted to the financial crisis in the same way as the climate crisis, with global meetings deferred for years at a time.

"Perhaps if the planet were a merchant bank, we might see the speedy, internationally coordinated and massive government activity we saw during the financial crisis. Keeping Australia out of recession and avoiding double digit unemployment is of course the right thing to do. I simply hope our institutions of government here and abroad will extend to the planet the same courtesy as they do to the finance sector."