Top five Tories

In a bid to ensure this blog is so full of outrages that if I ever stand for election there will be enough evidence to hang me, Weggis asks who are my top five Tories - knowing full well I wont write a spoof post outlining which Tories I think lose the Conservatives the most votes (Tebbit, Obsborne, Soames, Gove and Daniel Kawczynski if you're asking).

Anyway here's my top five. Disclaimer: I am not a Tory. I don't vote Tory and have no plans to do so within the next century or so.

Matthew Parris: I shouldn't really. I suspect he's done more for the rehabilitation of the Tories than any other but then I'm a sucker for urbane and chaming. It's one of those things that I like. The other thing I like about him is that he's willing to challenge his own ideas and change his mind. A rare quality in the politically minded unfortunately.

Steven Bercow: our new speaker of the House seems to have annoyed all the most reactionary Conservatives so he must have quite a bit to recommend him. As it happens I'm not sure I wanted a more progressive Tory to be pulled into an administrative role where he couldn't speechify on the issues of the day, but if it had to be someone he will definately do.

Harold MacMillan: possibly because I don't know much about him but he always seemed like a rather pleasant chap. Also someone told me once that he was asked what it was like being Prime Minister and he said "I get a lot more reading done." I hope that's true.

John Major: Ok, I'm running out! I basically feel sorry for the guy. The forgotten Prime Minister, obscure because he wasn't nearly as vile as his predecessor or his successor. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people say something along the lines of "First you had Thatcher and then Blair..." I guess that's a pretty high accolade for a PM, no one can remember you because you didn't screw things up too much.

Iain Dale: Leave to one side the fact he occasionally verges towards climate denial. Leave aside his status as founder member of the Hazel Blears fanclub. First of all I've always quite liked Iain when I've met him. Second of all he has a proper sense of humour and lastly and most importantly when he organises political discussion, in whatever forum, he likes to throw the net wide rather than sticking to the same old faces and political co-thinkers. I think all three of those things are admirable qualities.

There. Done. I know some of these choices might be controversial but you try it!

My top five zombies

Over at Dogwood Tales Neil is challenging people to make him name 'top fives' of their choosing. I naturally went for 'top five zombies'. Having read his response, which included a cocktail, I'm tempted to have a crack at it myself.

Football boy from Shaun of the dead.

Much over-looked in the pantheon of the undead 'football kid' as he is known is a bit part in that fantastic film 'Shaun of the Dead'. For me he exemplifies the futility of a zombie's urges to at once hold on to its last vestiges of humanity, whilst succumbing to its primordial desire to suck a hole in your head.

This is demonstrated through the medium of football.

The undead leader in I Am Legend adaption 'The Omega Man'.

As one of the few speaking zombies in film Matthias breaks down anti-zombie prejudice and helps us to see that they too have a point of view. The Martin Luther King of zombies if you will. Great film, great book.

I've always had a sneaking suspicion though that the undead were in fact Marxists and radicals who wanted to tear down the society that had made their aberrations possible. Could be wrong though. At least they never drool the word "Braaaaiiins..."

Obviously the zombie robots from my post - Zombie Robot Pandemonium - deserve a place here.

The theological implications of a zombie robot are unlikely to be lost on you and be assured that I am all too aware of them. That post is probably for another day though.

Robert Carlyle in 28 weeks later.

Wracked with survivor's guilt the opening scene where Carlyle desserts his wife as she faces certain death is extra-ordinarily powerful and worth seeing the film for on its own. We're talking unrelenting pathos here people.

He then sleepwalks his way through life until he discovered his wife actually survived. Torn between relief and facing the consequences of his betrayal Carlyle ends up being one of the most sympathetic zombies of all time, and one of the most scary.

The top place has to go to Toxoplasma Gondii. The parasite that prefers to live in cats' brains but also infects other creatures inducing behavioural changes in them.

If a rat is infected it will be irresistibly drawn to the scent of cats, essentially making it easy prey. The cat eats the rat and 'hey presto' Gondii gets to live in a cat's brain again! If a human is infected they are six times more likely to die in a traffic accident. Fact.

That's my top five zombies - any other top five lists I should be compiling while I'm at it?

Soup by request

I've been asked to post on soup and I almost always do what I'm told. Not that I have any lovely recipes to share or recommendations on which spoon to use in a fancy restaurant. I have two soup anecdotes and I shall share one of them which perhaps reveals a little of myself, although neither of my soup stories are what you might class World Beaters.

When I was a kid my family would go down to Swanage every year and stay with my Dad's Dad. It was reasonably pleasant, if you discount the time the gear box broke and we tried to drive all the way home in fourth gear. We'd have made it too if it wasn't for the damned Dartford Tunnel.

The advantage of Swanage (apart from the fact that board and lodging was presumably free) was that it has lovely beaches (where I almost drowned) and Corfe Castle (which for a child is a very exciting place to visit). I have fond memories of hot summers and splashing about in the sea although we stopped going when I was about eleven I guess.

Anyway, Granddad asked me whether I liked tomato soup and I must have seemed keen as come tea time out it came from the kitchen. Much to my horror there were tomatoes in it! People, this was not Heinz at all, but *home made*.

To this day I remember tasting it and feeling sick with horror because there were *bits in it* and it had an overwhelming taste of, well, garden grown tomatoes. I regret to inform you dear reader that I may not have seemed as grateful as I might have been.

The amount of time, energy and care that had gone into growing and making this meal was wasted on me and certainly every part of me wished they'd opened a tin of proper soup so I had something I could actually eat. You'll be pleased to hear that this ungrateful wretched was slapped silly, although in my defense this was the first time I'd ever encountered home made soup.

Marxist reading

Tim asks, in respect of the SWP discussion (below), "I've also long felt that I've missed out terribly by not having been through the sort of skills training and political education that you mention. (If you want to do your bit to help remedy this, Jim, you could help by naming the ten books which have been most important in forming your political outlook. How about a post on that?)"

Well, I'll give it a try with the caveat that it's not the books you read that provide the main part of your political education. For instance I'd been in the SWP for about two weeks when I was asked to do a talk on Lenin. I remember saying to the dear departed Pete Leech "But I don't know anything about Lenin." His response was "You've got a week, read some books." And because I didn't know that was ridiculous that's exactly what I did - to good effect.

That process of having to explain ideas constantly was far more effective at ingraining living political ideas into me than the more passive process of reading - particularly because you get to disagree and search for the right path collectively. Then you get arrested together to cement those ideological bonds.

Anyway, in roughly the order I read them here is my list of my ten most influential socialist books, may God have mercy on my soul;

1. Tony Cliff's Lenin Vol I "Building the Party"
   Really useful in understanding how a political party needs to be ready to change its shape to fit new situations. It's also good at describing how a party is necessarily made up of different sections which all have different interests and behaviours, and structural shifts are often about shifts in emphasis between these parts.
   
   
2. Callinicos "The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx"
   Whatever other faults Alex Callinicos may have there is no question that this is the finest explanation of the Marxist method there is. And I've read alot.
   
   
3. Marx and Engels "The Communist Manifesto"
   One of those books I delayed reading for a long time and then swept through in one go once I'd started. The poetry and fire of the Communist Manifesto is rarely matched in political works.
   
   
4. Trotsky "Problems of Everyday life"
   Actually a collection of Trotsky's post-revolution writings, this book demonstrates how politics isn't just grand schemes for changing the world, but about how we all live our everyday lives. It also has a great article on why politeness is political.
   
   
5. Engels "Socialism Utopian and Scientific"
   This short book outsold the Communist Manifesto for decades in the nineteenth century and once you read it you can see why. Once Engels is freed from Marx's rather drier style you have a deep, angry and very readable exposition on the need for a fundamental transformation of society.
   
   
6. Badayev "Bolsheviks in the Tsarist Duma"
   Badayev is not a household name, not even in households populated only by Marxists, but this work by one of the Bolsheviks in pre-revolutionary Russia who was elected to their version of Parliament is an inspirational read on how they organised under semi-legal conditions and used respectable structures as one arm of their revolutionary activity.
   
   
7. Rees "Algebra of Revolution" which is a great companion to Bukharin's "ABC of Communism"
   John Rees is a dude and this is surely his magnum opus. Nobody does the dialectic for a modern audience better than this. Engaging, if complex at times, this was a very useful work for getting to grips with the philosophical underpinnings of Marxism.
   
   
8. Marx "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844"
   This was a difficult book to read. But in terms of "filling out" an understanding of revolutionary thought it's completely invaluable.
   
   
9. Lukacs "History and Class Consciousness"
   But there are few useful books harder to read than this one. I think I read it three times before I began to understand what on Earth it was all about. Parts of it are easier than others, but once you come to grips with it and start understanding what he's saying you can start disagreeing with some of the most important concepts in Marxism.
   
   
10. ISJ until a couple of years.
    This one's a cheat really but the International Socialism Journal - which was, and still is, the SWP's theoretical journal was very handy indeed. Unfortunately once John Rees stopped editing it it became a lot more superficial and I generally wouldn't bother with it these days.
    

Jesus that looks like a dry list doesn't it? I can assure you most of it isn't, apart from Lucaks who is a very tough read and I wouldn't recommend him until you've familiarised yourself with other works first.

It's also an odd list because although I can still feel these books' influence on me this doesn't explain my politics at all. Although I would and do describe myself as a socialist I find the term Marxist completely meaningless, and certainly the idea of a Leninist Party seems so completely unhelpful in the modern context that I discount it altogether.

Mind you, I wouldn't have a clue where to start if I was to try to develop a similar list for Green ideas, I usually read the news and rather dry policy documents for that sort of thing. Perhaps people can suggest some?

Update: Matt Selwood has posted on this theme, as has Scott Redding, Adrian Windisch, Peter Sanderson, Weggis and Flesh is grass any other takers?

Haltemprice and Howden: RESULTS IN... Greens second place!

The Haltemprice and Howden by election probably hasn't turned out quite how David Davis imagined it might, although obviously he's kept his job with around 71% of the vote. For a start the Labour Party were a very sensible no show and the Lib Dems had agreed beforehand not to stand against him (which he's recently rather churlishly chucked back in their faces - but that's Tories for you I suppose).

It looks like turnout will be quite high under the circumstances (about 34.5%) but unfortunately this by election has been more noticeable for its unique character(s) than heightening the political discourse. The BBC have even wheeled out Roy Castle (RIP) to list all the ways it might be a record breaker.

Jill Saward was the Labour Party's proxy candidate who calls for increased surveillance (wow!) and she was was just one of the names on the extraordinarily large ballot paper you can see to the right (where I've cheekily added a little green cross). In fact there are so many candidates they can't even all fit on the stage for that dramatic election "moment".

Rupa Huq, whom I'm warming to considerably, reminds us that by elections are not barometers of national opinion but just local snap shots - all well and good, but Labour's misfortunes in these elections do come after very poor local election results and amidst the palpable air of death surrounding the PM. She may be right that in Haltemprice and Howden "If we were to choose a Shakesperian title Much Ado About Nothing sums up the state of affairs perfectly" but that certainly does not go for the political period.

The Greens have been performing well electorally in the last few years, so does this mean that, as someone in the comments box suggested recently, the Greens have finally thrown off their David Icke image? Well, I suspect most people have forgotten that fellow candidate Icke was ever in the Greens and one of the multitude of principle speakers we had way back in the mists of time (and whom the media selected as impromptu leader, because he'd been on the tele). Having said that there's still an image of the bearded, vegan, sandal wearing pagan - which, if we're being fair, is only 50% of the story. Cough.

Of course, image is not the only thing that is keeping the Greens from having a majority government. Part of the "problem" is that the Greens are a radical party with minority support, it calls for difficult solutions that often people don't want to hear and as Labour and the Tories were the first parties adopted it becomes a vicious cycle that is difficult to break.

If your political philosophy says there has to be a fundamental break with the way things are done now that's not a comfortable and easy message - particularly when coupled with ideas of independent autonomous grass roots action. I think sometimes people want someone else to sort it all out for them.

It's also true that by being first on the field Labour and Tories are at a tremendous advantage with anyone else having to not just persuade the electorate of their ideas, but also convince them that they can win, that it's not a wasted vote. Whilst Icke wont be persuading anyone of his philosophies, and Shan Oakes certainly will have, they both face the same problem that most of the 26 candidates face - convincing people they are not just a waste of time who cannot win. Which is why in areas where we get that first glimpse of electoral success new successes quickly follow.

But there are advantages too - over civil liberties, over the environment, over the war and a host of other things the Green Party's opinions are shared by millions in this country, although probably not the majority. Whilst Icke has the dubious privilege of being the most mocked man with mental health problems ever in the UK the Greens are probably the most under reported party expressing commonly held views ever. At least a bit of mocking would be something.

Like all political parties the Greens have different currents and tendencies, it has individuals of great talent and of alarming eccentricities - and sometimes they are the same people. What is clear from the results in London or Norwich or Brighton if you have people who are serious about organising on the ground you can make serious headway over time, despite the difficulties of being one of the "others".

Full Results as follows;

Party		Candidate	Votes	%
	Conservative	David Davis	17,113	71.56
	Green	Shan Oakes	1,758	7.4
	English Democrats	Joanne Robinson	1,714	7.2
	National Front	Tess Culnane	544	2.3
	Miss Great Britain Party	Gemma Garrett	521	2.2
	Independent	Jill Saward	492	2.1
	Monster Raving Loony	Mad Cow-Girl	412	1.7
	Independent	Walter Sweeney	238	1.0
	Independent	John Nicholson	162	0.7
	Independent	David Craig	135	0.6
	The New Party	David Pinder	135	0.6
	no label	David Icke	110	0.5
	Freedom 4 Choice	Hamish Howitt	91	0.4
	Socialist Equality	Chris Talbot	84	0.4
	Independent	Grace Astley	77	0.3
	Christian Party	George Hargreaves	76	0.3
	Church of the Militant Elvis Party	David Bishop	44	0.2
	Independent	John Upex	38	0.2
	Independent	Greg Wood	32	0.1
	Independent	Eamonn Fitzpatrick	31	0.1
	Make Politicians History	Ronnie Carroll	29	0.1
	Independent	Thomas Darwood	25	0.1
	Independent	Christopher Foren	23	0.1
	Independent	Herbert Crossman	11	-
	Independent	Tony Farnon	8	-
	Independent	Norman Scarth	8	-

I think Shan and her team can be very proud of what they've achieved here.

Lisbon Pole Axed?

Interesting news that the Polish PM has indicated he'll not ratify the Lisbon treaty because it's "pointless", and he's right for once.

Lech Kaczynski, whose twin brother is also a leading Polish politician, made the statement on the same day that France took over the Presidency of the EU. He stated concerns that to ratify the treaty despite Ireland's recent public rejection would undermine the spirit of unity among the member states.

The treaty requires all 26 states to ratify the treaty for it to be valid but the mood among the higher echelons certainly appears to be that the Irish failed their exam. There were lots of accusations that voters didn't know what the issues were, that they didn't know what was in the treaty et al - as if they'd have cared if the vote had gone the other way!

As an aside, if you don't understand a treaty it's perfectly reasonable to vote against adopting in case it has problems you can't know. If the yes side were so worried about the unwashed millions not understanding the treaty it might have been wise for them to emulate the no campaign and discuss it.

What none of the yes side seem prepared to admit is that the no campaign had a better campaign and it certainly does not look to me as if the yes campaign had done its utmost to explain the detail to voters if their posters are anything to go by. Unless I'm missing the subtle implication of what the left melon might mean about ongoing European integration.

With ads like these no wonder the more liberal younger generation voted overwhelming against the backward, condescending chauvinism of the Irish elites. It was very much a case of the respectable classes against the uppity masses, every major party supported the treaty, with Sein Fein being the most mainstream political voice against.

This in part is why there was so much wailing and gnashing of teeth. The political classes just could not understand the ungrateful children who went against their wishes. It's almost as if they did not represent and define the politics of those they pretend to represent. Mick Hall described their pathetic excuses as a "pretty thin gruel" because for all their bluster they simply don't get why their pet project is so unpalatable to so many people.

There were many no voices, as this research indicates (pdf), although it's clear that the higher up the class ladder you climb the more likely you were to feel that you had some vested interest in the treaty. Women, the young and the unemployed were particularly opposed to the treaty but by far the biggest "no" demographic was manual workers with 74% opposed to 26% for. The more you look into it the clearer the picture becomes one where some feel society works for them, and some who experience it as a force that acts against their interests.

The EU monolith might have elections connected to it, but it feels far from democratic. This feeling of disenfranchisement can't be written off as ignorance of the issue - because people *know* they're disenfranchised - which would make it an even uglier irony if their decision was taken away from them.

The pressure to push on with the project and take it back to the Irish people with a school matronly "now try this one again" is palpable and that is what's behind the attempt to get the other nations to sign up - to isolate and punish Ireland - and precisely why we should oppose those who'd ride rough shod over the voice of the Irish people.

The cruel fact is that the refusal to ratify the Lisbon treaty does not jeopardise the union, it simply humiliates those who are normal untouchable and unaccountable. It mocks their plans and discards them as so much trash - that's why these elites are in such a huff. Not because the EU is threatened, which is an utterly spurious piece of reasoning, but because we don't like them.

I guess the Irish hurt their feelings. Never mind chaps, worse things happen at sea.

This post was part of the "suggest a topic season"

Crewe cut could be fatal for Brown

The Crewe and Nantwiche by-election is exciting media interest not least because of Labour's ultra-negative "anti-toff" campaign. Coming on the heels of disastrous local election results in one of the safer Labour seats, this single constituency has taken on national significance, frankly well beyond that which it would normally merit. No disrespect like, but Nantwiche High Street does not normally get flooded with MPs of all parties during an election campaign - and it wont be again for some time, so "enjoy" it while it lasts folks.

The New Labour government is beset with woes and can seemingly do no right. The hapless Brown is so discredited that Labour's by-election candidate, Tamsin Dunwoody, has refused to endorse him and he has been notable by his absence from the campaign. The golden boy who was to rejuvenate the post-Blair party has made the old days look a little brighter than they seemed at the time.

Key to the current problems is the ten pence tax rate fiasco where New Labour decided to double the rate of taxation - but only for the lowest paid workers in the country. Even the well off understood that this is simply unjust and no amount of buying off MPs dissent changes the fact that Brown will carry a ten pence shaped black spot with him until his ever approaching political demise.

Tamsin Dunwoody's response to the ten pence tax scandal? Well, it's two fold and I'm not sure which is the more brain numbing. Firstly she "critiques" the fact that the Conservatives are mentioning it at all, saying the Tory candidate "ran on the 10p issue being the only issue in the campaign. Actually it is all about the local people and local issues. Cameron refused to say he would reverse the 10p change." (source)

Abolishing the lowest rate of tax is a local issue - all over the country. The arrogance to think that hitting low paid workers isn't significant is astonishing - as if it's all a media fuss. No Tamsin, lots of the poorest working people you're talking to at the moment have just been punched by Brown's clunking fist. That matters. Also your government abolished it, so you don't get to score points off Cameron for not reversing your decision. They even have leaflets criticising the Tories over the 10p tax fiasco, ummm, hello?

Just to be clear David Cameron was not the Chancellor of the Exchequer who decided to abolish the ten pence tax rate and he's not the Prime Minister who's pushing the decision through - that's your bloke Tamsin. What sort of muppet is running their campaign? Surely Labour should have had the sense to try to divert people's attention from this rather than actively brag about the whole affair.

Incidentally, all this stuff about her understanding the issues of local people. She lives in a big house in Wales ffs where she's been pursuing a less than illustrious political career, with a brief spell in the Welsh Assembly. For all her talk of the Tory being an outsider she comes from a family totally alien to most working class people.

So we come to the infamous attack on the Conservative candidate for being a "toff". Not only do a lot of voters find this sort of personalised attack distasteful it's not even the kind of class warfare that the left of the party approves of, who have the sense to understand it's the person's politics not the school they went to that matters. Some of the finest socialists this country has produced have been "toffs" Tony Benn and Paul Foot spring to mind for starters.

Dave says that "New Labour might just as well have gone the whole nine yards and got the hapless Dunwoody woman to don a flat cap and lead a whippet around throughout the campaign, while stressing her leisure time pursuits of pigeon fancying and growing marrows at every available press conference." This crudeness embarrasses even those who still hold to the class conflict ideals of Labour's long dormant left.

Left wing Labour MP John McDonnell said yesterday on Cif that "As the economy gets worse, [the left] need not only robust alternative policies (that we're happy for Brown to borrow), but strong and creative campaigns to defend the victims of an economic downturn". In other words the left should be advocating political ideas not spouting hypocritical crap about toffs.

Anyway. Tamsin Dunwoody's grandmother sat in the House of Lords, her grandfather was the General Secretary of the Labour Party and both her parents were government Ministers, if we're going to start levelling accusations of privilege around Tamsin you should be warned - you're on that list. Dunwoody belongs to a political class that thinks it has the birth right to rule and the fact that the seat is being handed down from mother to daughter simply leaves an even more bitter taste to the whole thing.

Don't tell me to be afraid of what the Tory elites want to do, I am, but I'm afraid of the New Labour elites too. What's your alternative? What political differences are there between the candidates? Dunwoody may have a more ruddy accent (although I think she might actually just be thick, apologies if that's untrue) but on a whole series of questions she seems to be to the right of the Tories, not their left. This bogus class warfare is an attempt to disguise the absence of Labour values, not signal a return to them. The only thing that isn't fake about Labour's anti-elitist credentials is that the guy they had dress up as a toff actually is one, but the rest is balls.

Dunwoody is the only candidate in favour of extending detention to 42 days because "my concern would always be for the people of Crewe and Nantwichs safety." Yes, I believe the area is the top of Al Quaeda's hit list isn't it? Anyway, her protestations that it would only rarely be used doesn't fit with the fact that the police use every power that they are given and they don't care if Parliament only meant it to be used in clear cut cases of terrorism. Again, so we're clear, none of the other candidates support this. None of them. She is the most right wing candidate.

Labour bloggers seem to be keeping their hands over their eyes and maintaining a deep silence on the by-election, in general, and that's very understandable. They know they'll take a pasting but don't know how to reverse their fortunes. Any Labour campaign under current circumstances would be ridiculed and look frayed and tired - because it has the tattered shadow of Gordon cast across it. If this by-election had been taking place during Labour's upswell the incompetence and borish stupidity of the campaign would have gone unnoticed - but now it contributes to Labour's national troubles.

The Green Party are standing in this election too, but we're realistic about our chances. There is no question that our profile will be all but totally obliterated in the melee between the big two camps. Peter Cranie's piece on the Green campaign, whilst upbeat, is realistic too and doubtful as to whether we'd save our deposit. Our local website can be found at Green Crewe for those with a curious streak.

However, it comes to something when the Labour candidate's campaign is made to look oafish and politically illiterate by the independent candidate Gemma Garrett (who is Miss Great Britain and standing on an anti-sleaze platform, apparently). She is reported to have said that;

"It is risible and sad that they have stooped to this level of personal abuse which even included a barrage of verbal abuse directed at me by party workers. It all tells me that we need a new sort of politics which will engage peoples' interests and help turn back the dull tide of cynicism which has dogged this country's political life for so long now."

Well, quite.

Look Gordon, you don't want the Tories to win the next general election, I don't want the Tories to win the next election, none of your colleagues want them to win the next election (probably) so let's talk turkey. It's not about you, your ambitions, your career, your place in the history books - so stop making it about you.

Just step aside mate.

Everyone would respect that. Your days in front line politics are over, you could take some time off, get to know your family, go fishing, write your memoirs, enjoy yourself. Your party needs you to do this one last thing in order to win the next general election. Go. Be a man and do the right thing, with dignity. God knows your Parliamentary colleagues are too craven to do you in, so you'll have to help them out. Please.

As requested under suggest a topic

I'm a socialist and so is Tony... and other absurdities

It's time to have a second go at my experimental "suggest a topic" posts, where the reader gets to suggest what I post about.

Last time I had six suggestions (from four people) and I posted on them all - in fact it seemed to work rather well. So I'm having another go, if you'd like to know more about something or are curious as to what I might say on a particular subject feel free to leave a comment with your request. There are no guarantees of course, but so far we have a 100% success rate!

In the meantime here is a miscellany of links that piqued my interest in the last little bit.

1. Cherie Blair is a socialist, and so is Tony - honest! Why does this conjure images of the last scene in Life of Brian where the guy shouts "I'm Brain... and so's my wife!"?
   
   
2. Brian Paddick's election diary is rather funny, in an unintended sort of way.
   
   
3. Sunny Hundal does a good job of taking apart the anti-abortion rhetoric over at comment is free. "If the case for reducing the upper time limit for abortion is so compelling, why do its supporters have to twist the facts and deceive to try to make their case?"
   


4. In Italy they elected a fascist Mayor and a villainous right wing government and so we should not be surprised that not only are the political classes indulging in ethnic cleansing, the rightward moving population approves.


5. The F Word points out that solar powered bras are not a very good idea... you'd have thought it didn't need saying, but it did.
   


6. Jews Sans Frontiers takes the time to berate Alan Johnson. Thank you!
   

I'm looking forward to your suggestions.

Tibet: mice against monsters

The riots in Tibet have received many column inches in the last few weeks, but much less coverage on the Green and left blog-o-sphere. Half the blogs that have posted on it have either descended into academic micro-arguments about the nature of Tibet in the 1950's (as if the protesters' demands include access to time machines) or simply rerun the lines of Western "pro-Tibet" governments vs pro-Chinese mouthpieces.

The riots began on March 10th (the 49th anniversary of the first independence uprising) when peaceful independence marches were smashed off the streets by the state. The protests escalated into violence and rippled out into other areas (including Beijing and neighbouring countries like Nepal). The protests became riots with wide spread looting, fighting with state forces and attacks on immigrant Hans.

There have been some hilarious contributions to the debate defending the actions of the Chinese authorities. One line is that Tibetans are better off living within the bounds of China's thriving economy than they were under feudal Tibet prior to the invasion. False choice, bad conclusion. The Tibetan economy is better than it was fifty years ago so the Chinese government has the right to kill and torture those who want to voice a legitimate political opinion? It's better in Wales now than it was fifty years ago, will any protest there be caricatured as wanting to reintroduce dripping sandwiches and pit accidents?

Another line is that to support the demands of the protesters is to support ethnic cleansing of the Hans. Well, firstly Hans became victims of attack after the repression began - in other words when the Chinese government cut off access to passive resistance those with nothing turned on the nearest identifiable targets weak enough to harm - those people that were associated with the occupation of Tibet in the minds of many native Tibetans due to long term demographic manipulation by the Chinese state. Now, these attacks are quite wrong, but they stem from a real grievance and we need to understand where any anti-Hans racism may come from.

Mark Steel was particularly good on this the other day when he lambasted the Morning Star for its attempts to blame outside agitators (in this case the Dalai Lama) "So Tibetans are defying a powerful army because they've been brainwashed by a 72-year-old with glasses who presumably chants his orders up a mountain, and as they echo round the valleys his followers stare into the distance and say robotically "Orders – from – master – must – get – crushed – by –tank."" As if anyone needs to be told to hate oppression. Frankly the claims that it was bjork who started it all off seem plausible in comparison.

Of course wealth, power and oppression has many critics, but it also has many admirers, and not just the more stale minded leftists. Like Yahoo and MSN for instance, who are helping the Chinese authorities root out the "most wanted" of those who oppose them, just as Google have been helping the CIA.

The simple truth is that if you're with those who roll their tanks over the heads of the poor then you've chosen the well trodden path of complicity with dictatorship. It's time to rethink.

Some warn of the "danger" of the young turning away from the holy messages of peace that the Dalai Lama advocates. Some shake their heads that the some Tibetans are turning towards violence. Let's be clear on this violence is the only answer. There are no other paths left open to those who want a more democratic society. The authorities have done everything they can to head off every avenue of peaceful resistance. They've succeeded, so it's the time for looting, stone throwing, bomb making, and baby eating until more peaceful options open themselves up again.

The Dalai Lama is a self aggrandised distraction in this entire process - the real people of Tibet are not the Dalai Lama and their concerns are not identical to his. Now obviously I've never had much time for spiritual leaders, but he is the self proclaimed leader of the government in exile elected in the... oh no.. hold on... enthroned as Tibet's absolute ruler in 1950 (age 15) although in fairness to him he now calls for a democratic system for Tibet, not a return to feudalism (despite what some on the left seem to think).

Some have criticised the way he has taken millions from the CIA when his interests and theirs coincided. It's something that's worth bearing in mind, but when there were those resisting in Afghanistan against the Russian occupation my support for that struggle was not contingent on them refusing aid from the CIA, nor was my support for Solidarity negated by the fact they were assisted by the West and the Catholic Church. People have a right to resist their repression no matter where that fits into global realpolitik, and I certainly don't give a shit about the Chinese system of government coming under threat.

Anyway, the Dalai Lama's views on Marxism, for instance, seem at odds with his CIA-loving image on the left. "Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair… The failure of the regime in the Soviet Union was, for me not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."

I don't support him but let's not accept the fascist caricature that some seem keen to paint either. Then we have Mr Galloway who, in the Daily Record said “From the outset the American right and their pathetic echo chambers here have been determined to wreck China's Olympic Games, or at least to diminish them in the way the Moscow Olympics of 1980 were. Every button is pushed from China's supposed "occupation" of Tibet (in fact Tibet was always part of the Chinese motherland, and has been rescued from the mists of obscurantism under the demi-God Dalai Lama by the Chinese revolution) through its attitude to circus bears, the Falun Gong and its one-child policy.” Daily Record Feb. 18th (hat tip: yourfriendinthenorth). This makes me very sad. For someone who is so clear in his opposition to imperialism at home to be giving left cover to imperialism abroad flies in the face of any internationalism he may wish to claim for himself.

Any anti-imperialist posturing on the part of the UK, French or US governments is frankly bizarre, and people should be cautious of some of the Western organised Tibet solidarity movements - but consistent anti-imperialists should not allow the UK government's mouthings prevent them showing solidarity just as China's "opposition" to the Iraq invasion did not force the anti-war movement to hold fire... if that's the right phrase to use. Don't wave the CIA bogey man at me and think I'm not going to feel common cause with those who want to end dictatorship.

Some people seem so frightened of siding with the US that, even when they aren't they fear people might think they are, and start bending themselves into all sorts of odd shapes. Get over it, the US is the great Satan - but it doesn't make everyone else in the world little angels does it? There are a lot of fronts to fight on and the Tibet people are on one of them, don't let your opponents define your thought for you.

I don't care either way about the Olympics in China or Britain - these things are enormous, pompous wastes of resources designed to glorify nations I hate and promote a tedious athletic ideal I abhor. They bulldoze local communities in favour of their international prestige and then want to be thanked for doing so. They puff themselves up and feel so proud of their hegemonic monuments and grand spectacles of national unity. No, have the Olympics in the Faroe Islands with the only events the three legged race and international standard badger tossing, I don't care a bit for them.

You know I'm a great fan of dialogue - but to get to the table the Tibetan resistance will have to earn Chinese respect. Whilst China relies on Tibetan water they could try to cut off that supply, but whilst Tibet is peripheral to the Chinese economy all they will have to fight with is that very willingness to fight - and I find that willingness admirable to the highest order.

Unfortunately that violence will be messy, as every violent revolt has been throughout history. When Toussaint L'Ouverture, Spartacus or Ned Ludd took themselves into the fray it was not as left leaning liberals but as those fighting for their lives and liberty. There is only one set of people who can avoid further bloodshed, and that is the Chinese Government by taking the boot off the neck of those they oppress and letting them breath. If you support that boot don't cry fake tears when people get hurt.

An independent government, whether or not the Dalai Lama led it, would be moving forwards towards the modern world and greater democracy. A victory in Tibet could and should open up a space in the rest of China and give inspiration to others whether they be in Burma, Iraq, Nepal or Luton.

China is an imperialist state. It acts like imperialism, it walks like imperialism, it leaves dead bodies and helps itself to stolen territory just like imperialism. When people protest for the ability of the individual to live their own life, it is the very the definition of tyranny to send in a trigger happy occupying army to crush those desires.

One of the most amusing arguments I've seen during this debate is that because journalists can't get in and we don't have accurate information on the situation we don't know if the Chinese government is being nasty and whether the protesters are all that nice really - well perhaps the fact that we don't have any information because of the Chinese Government's efforts to suppress all media on the subject might just be a slight hint don't you think on what the situation might be... hmmm tricky.

This situation isn't simply about independence its about justifiable rage. There is an online petition you can sign to "end the violence" if you like - but if the repression doesn't end then I'm holding out for more.

This post is brought to you via suggest a topic for the Daily (Maybe), thanks to Weggis for the suggestion.

Darfur: what's not to be done?

John A asks "Intervention in Darfur - right or wrong and why and to what extent?"

Darfur, the Western region of the Sudan, is a very poor place that has been riven by civil war since 2003, a time when all eyes around the world were fixed on Iraq. This is a country that has a history of decades of religious and ethnic strife laid over the top of the struggle for control by a small elite based mainly in the East of the country.

It is estimated that the casualties of this current conflict have cost hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced more than two million people, many of them living utterly impoverished in camps over the border in Chad. It's also the case that mutilations, rapes and ethnic cleansing have been systematically used throughout this conflict.

The Sudanese government, far from simply being unable to deal with the scale of the war is an active participant in it. Arming militias and conducting its own operations, including murdering journalists. The UN has accused Sudan's government of orchestrating and taking part in "gross violations" in Darfur.

If ever there was a time and place for extending the hand of friendship to those in dire need it is here and now. Just a few days ago the UN released a report condemning the Sudanese government for attacking villages in Darfur killing 115 people and displacing 30,000. This is not yesterday's news it is going on now - however, the newspapers chose not to currently report the crisis - what with the nude pictures of the French President's wife and other events of world shattering importance.

A few years back UN resolution 1706 called for over 20,000 UN troops to come to the aid of the 7,000 poorly equipped African Union troops already stationed in the country. Years later it has still not happened due to the fierce opposition of the Sudanese government. It's one thing to station peacekeepers tolerated by both sides (like in the Ivory Coast) its quite another thing to face the armed resistance of a government well accustomed to civil war in its own backyard. The situation has been further complicated by a series of cross border raids into and from Chad, something the UN hopes some progress is being made on.

It's too easy to label this as simply an ethnic conflict when there are so many layers of problems laid on top of each other. Poverty is at intense levels in much of the country and, with less than half the children going to school, the long term prospects for the economy do not look good. The government has long favoured the East of the country and is happy to ignore the economic, social and political needs of the Western parts of the Sudan and they are happy to repress, jail or murder those who protest. The UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon has put the conflict down, at least partly, to climate change, citing "disputes over water resources are a major cause of the conflict in Darfur".

Of course there are fears that if we "sit back" we will see a repeat of Rwandan genocide or worse. What the simple calls for military intervention miss though is that UN troops will meet resistance and become, in effect, one more armed gang - loaded with money but with no local roots. Any military intervention in the Sudan would look far less like Jar Head than Black Hawk Down.

In other words we'll hear simplistic phrases used to justify a military presence, whilst on the ground only more harm is being done, ending with humilating defeat. Without undercutting the causes of the conflict flooding the terrain with foreign fighters will do little to improve the situation.

On a positive note - it *is* possible to make a difference even in the most unfavourable terrain.
For example, the World Health Organisation has declared Somalia a polio free zone, despite the difficulties development workers have faced in the region. It is possible to improve peoples lives without sending in helicopter gun ships. When the US troops withdrew from Somalia in '95, after a few of their lads got killed in the process of massacring hundreds in Mogadishu, they left a legacy of distrust for the West - but they opened up the possibility of working in the country again, by taking their guns out of the situation.

Somalia has many, many deep problems but the WHO has been able to make a small but real difference to those who live there. The same can be true of Darfur.

The international community can and should intervene to address those severe issues around poverty, education, water and food supplies which can, over time, both improve the quality of life for those who are not yet refugees in their own country and undercut those factors feeding into the conflict. That cannot be done at the same time as the deployment of heavy weaponry. It can't even be done coupled with the task of regime change - no matter how good that sentiment might make me feel.

There is no short cut, feel good solution to the problems of Sudan. Sorry. But I do believe the West can and should do our best to sow the seeds of peace in this most unpromising of areas. There are no guarantees and there are no easy answers - but tackling the economic and social roots of the problem is key, sending in the mercenaries is not.

If you'd like to suggest a topic for the Daily (Maybe) leave a message here.

Praise Canada

Great story in the Guardian the other day about how wonderful Canada is compared to the slime ridden crime fest that is modern Britain (apparently). Not only do they drink a thing called a "carrot, apple and ginger smoothie", whatever that might be, they also really appreciate the police.

The Guardian followed a pair of British cops plodding the mean streets of Calgary. "All morning there had been no crimes to foil - though one man did ask for directions - but the pair seemed blissfully happy, not to mention well-loved." (my emphasis) I love that but . Not once did they have to deal with a drugged up arsehole or a granny who'd been beaten to pulp but somehow they still remained chipper strolling the gold paved streets of Calgary... I couldn't help but titter at the weird world the journalist is trying to conjure up there with their but.

We're told it's an ideal place for serving cops to emigrate to and by the end of 2008 "nearly 10% of Calgary's entire force will be British." Why is this? Well, an ex-Brit cop tells us that "No joke, around 10-15 times a day, a member of the public comes up to me and tells me what a good job I'm doing," said Locke. "In 14 years working for the Met, I think that happened twice."

However, I think the clue to their pleasant working conditions lies outside of the ruthless efficiency of the Canadian police force, no disrespect. Canada has "virtually zero unemployment and a rapidly ageing indigenous population of just over three million... Plus the education system is good, there is free health care for all, and the job market is so competitive that wages are high."" Ahhhh, now I'm beginning to see why there are "no crimes to foil".

All those people who are thanking their local bobby should be thanking the economy and the Social Democratic orientation of the Canadian political system. The fact is social problems require social solutions. Whilst the quality of life in Canada is that much higher than in the majority of the world (although the article rather over eggs the pudding I suspect) crime will be lower, crack downs and repressive legislation have nothing to do with it.

No go to the ASBO

This is essentially a rewrite from this Jan 2006 piece.

They have to do it. Brown's Ministers, each one more hapless than the last, have to show they are cracking the whip. Thankfully the aggressive rhetoric around ASBOs hasn't been seen for a while - but local papers round the country adore each latest installment of 'pond life watch', legitimised by the official sanction of ASBOs. Because you have to be tough in this dog eat dog world - and if the government doesn't eat its citizens perhaps they will eat it - and we simply cannot have that.

Take the Child Curfews. New Labour did everything they could to appear to be somewhere to the right of Herod on his first born policy - but in the end they were far better at producing press releases than they were at producing any change. Three years later, not a single child curfew is in place, but it did allow Blair to pose as the defender of law and order. Even if he's essentially defending you from the kids.

When Blair said all those years ago that he’d be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, he’d come up with a great sound bite. It appealed to an idea of community – it’s not on to duff up old ladies, but equally it’s not on to ignore the social exclusion and problems that led to the duffing up. It turns out though that Blair simply thought that the causes of crime were evil criminals and so set about stuffing the jails full to bursting, leaving many of the social problems that cause crime untouched.

Criminal justice groups criticised the "respect agenda" proposals for being packed with gimmicks and "undermining the natural principles of justice." Blair laid out his big stick and we were all meant to gasp and admire. But Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, was not impressed when she said; "When forcing people out of their homes is the latest gimmick, it's time to consider what 'Asbomania' is doing to the country. the vulnerable are swept up with the guilty and naming and shaming is rampant. The Prime minister 'batters' the values of British justice and calls it 'respect'."

If we look at how ASBOs have turned out we can see how little this style of proposal has to offer in terms of making communities nicer places to live. But, whilst many of us on the left see at a first glance that the introduction of ID cards, the victimisation of refugees or the new anti-terror legislation are part of a drive by government to give itself new police powers and undermine civil liberties, ASBOs are often opposed in far more cagey terms with caveats about how terrible working class estates are to live on and something must be done about rampaging yobs.

Those who hedge their arguments in this way are accepting one of the great lies that surround ASBOs – that they do something to tackle anti-social behaviour and make the poorest estates somehow easier to live in. Part of this lies in the great game of spin’s rule number one. Everything must have the right name.

When Bush wanted to introduce all sorts of completely unacceptable far right legislation he called it the Patriot Act and everyone who opposed it had to start saying how patriotic they were. They fell at the first fence. When Blair wants to detain Old Age Pensioners who heckle at Labour Party conferences he called it anti-terrorist legislation – it was not introduced as the “Shut up granddad bill”

If the Home Secretary had had an uncharacteristic fit of honesty the day they proposed ASBOs he would have named them the “Isn’t the law inconvenient sometimes – can’t we just do what the hell we like (to poor people)” orders. It would at least be useful for the sake of clarity. The fact is that ASBOs represent a massive undercutting of the legal safeguards that protect us from arbitrary arrest and detention. These were fought for hard and long and should not be given away as lightly as all that.

Everyone has heard of the weird and wonderful ASBOs that have been awarded – the boys who weren’t allowed to wear hats, or the fellow who has to use the back door to his house – but these horrible true life jokes are not the worst of it by a long shot. There are two key ways ASBOs are used that are completely unacceptable and genuinely make up the vast majority of cases. They are used against behaviour that is already illegal and they are used against people who are in dire need of significant help from society.

By giving an order to an individual not to commit an already criminal act there is a serious attempt to by-pass the criminal justice system. When a man was given an order not to attack his bin men he was essentially being told that the court could impose a heavier sentence on him, and require less proof, than is normally possible for his criminal acts (if any). For example, you could go to jail for a crime that carried no such penalty.

More importantly when receiving the ASBO the recipient has nothing like the ability to defend themselves and put their case as they would in a criminal court, despite the fact that once the ASBO is breached it becomes a criminal act (even if it is later rescinded through appeal). The burden of proof has fundamentally shifted. Of the young people who receive what is called an ‘interim’ ASBO last year (2005) 43% were given no notice that an ASBO was being considered and given no chance to attend the hearing in order to argue against an ASBO being imposed. The first they heard of it was when they were informed the ASBO was already in place.

That’s not all. Even when potential ASBOee’s are able to put their case their ability to do so on an even playing field is hopelessly undermined. Council officials can give evidence on behalf of witnesses who remain anonymous, which means these witnesses cannot be cross examined – so hearsay evidence suddenly becomes admissible in a way that no court would ever have previously allowed. You could go to jail for breaking an order only imposed due to rumour, speculation, malice or mistaken identity and without the necessity of one shred of proof.

The second group of people who are on the sharp end of ASBOs are those with mental health problems or neurological disorders. These cases are extremely common and often heart breaking. There was the case of the woman who, after a number of suicide attempts, was banned from going up the multi-storey car park or near the canal. A society that criminalises despair instead of offering help is one living in a moral vacuum.

When a 15 year old Midlands boy with Tourettes Syndrome was banned from swearing in public it can be seen as nothing else but criminalising his condition and imposing house arrest. When a lad with Aspergers was banned from “staring into his neighbours garden” it displayed an uncommon ignorance and placed conditions upon someone that they could not possibly fulfil or properly understand. Without the opportunity to give a defence and explain the nature of these conditions it is inevitable that gross injustices occur. ASBO's in particular have been used to try to criminalise behaviour rather than tackle the problems that lie behind it.

When you hear of the prostitute that was barred from carrying condoms you have to think “this is supposed to make her *more* socially responsible?” How many kids even understand the conditions of their ASBOs? The boy with learning disabilities who broke his ASBO conditions over twenty times by, among other things, playing five aside football in the park (he was banned from assembling with more than two people) ended up in severe distress attempting to hang himself in a police cell and self harming to the extent that he is permanently disfigured. Sometimes the local council has 'named and shamed' those who've received an ASBO and more than once the victims of these campaigns have been assaulted or harassed. In the case of under 16s naming and shaming would be illegal if they had been convicted of a criminal offence, but perfectly possible if they had received an ASBO and never been convicted of any crime.

The full scale of the undermining of civil rights is highlighted very well, I think, by the following example. A woman received an official letter threatening her son with an ASBO because he had been driving a scooter round the estate at all hours and had been making a general mischief of himself. Clearly an unwholesome specimen you’re thinking perhaps? The thing is her son was not born yet and the woman was the victim of a malicious hoax.

I know what you’re thinking – how does she know the foetus is not sneaking out at night causing mayhem without her knowledge – I suppose we’ll never know. But what we can know is that the police, the council or indeed any official body could never have had any dealings with her ‘son’ on any level what so ever, and yet were willing to threaten an ASBO on the simple word of possibly only one of her neighbours. In court this would be called hearsay and rightly be thrown out, welcome to the world of the ASBO.

Imagine for a moment that the woman’s son had been 15. On literally no evidence the council would have been happy to place an ASBO on him suddenly making acts like going into the town centre criminal ones. There is a swathe of bizarre and downright unjust ASBOs – it’s not down to one or two people making slip ups, its built into the ASBOs themselves. They are the removal of a whole series of protections against the indiscriminate use of the law and, as long as ASBOs exist, they will generate case after case of disgusting injustice.

The problems on working class estates stem from the fact that we have communities without a sense of community, and there is no law enforcement measure that can combat that. We need to look to social rather than policing solutions. Social centres, after school football and clubs, proper community facilities and real attempts to improve the quality of everyday life are tried and tested measures that are ignored because they don’t involve imprisonment or privatising something. They don't make for good by lines in the Daily Mail, but they are proven to really work - unlike authoritarian legislation.

As Will McMahon of the Crime and Society Foundation says "With each cranking up of the 'respect' agenda, the Government takes a further step away from its trumpeted goal of tackling the causes of crime. The sad fact is no political party has shown any real inclination to address the bedrock of poverty that underlies many of the social problems that the Prime Minister claims to care about."

By deliberately alienating and isolating people in this way we are going out of our way to ensure their behaviour spirals out of control. These orders give carte blanch to the government to criminalise the poor and that really is anti-social behaviour.

Check out the Carnival of Socialism this Friday over at Leftwing Criminologist

Review: If I'm not for myself

Rabbinical wisdom says that we should "Love work, loathe mastery over others, and avoid intimacy with the government." You'd be hard pressed to find these sentiments expressed by some of those who have taken it on themselves to fuse Jewish identity with the Israeli state.

Mike Marqusee's excellent new book If I Am Not For Myself takes on this relationship between Jewish identity and the state of Israel in the form of an intimate family memoir. He looks back at the activities and lives of his father and grandfather as American socialists who also supported the foundation of Israel and the subsequent terror against the Palestinians.

Where Marqusee is so strong is that instead of demonising or caricaturing Zionism he takes pains to crawl inside it and explore the psychology that led those who had stood against oppression whenever they found it to support ethnic cleansing and violence when it came to the foundation of the "Jewish State".

He takes their ideas seriously enough to explore them with sympathy - even when this becomes difficult or frustrating. Whilst he movingly recognises their human failings and is clearly not always approving of what he found in his journey there is no taint of moralism or pretence that people are easy to label and define, rather than complex and often nuanced mixtures. In fact, so well written and engaging is this book that I caught myself occasionally thinking "Why do I ever read books by people who are not Mike Marqusee?"

Whilst the majority of the book finds Marqusee sifting through a battered leather case full of memories and evidence of the past there is a noticeable gear shift towards the end of the book where he moves from his relationship with his family's history towards his relationship to the political movements (both right and left) of today. This section is a departure in tone from the rest of the book but it is no less readable and does not descend into dogmatism.

Whilst Israel's anti-semitic opponents share with the Zionists an obsession with creating an identity between Jewishness and Israel what this does is deny the fact that many Jews absolutely and completely reject the behaviour of the Israeli state, and some even reject its right to exist. That whilst they claim to act in the name of a shared Jewish interest they have no right to that claim, and that Jews need to speak for themselves lest the Zionists end up speaking for them.

For those of the left part of the task of undermining anti-Semitism is to show that actually Zionism is a political movement that has served an agenda very far from representing Jews (even if this were possible). Jews themselves are, just like everyone else, divided on political questions. To deny this is to render the Jewish population into some homogeneous mass - and you can see that this serves the purpose of the racists and the apologists for Israel's actions alike but does no service to those Jews who have been denied their own identity and voice in the process. As Jews Sans Frontier writes the ideology of anti-semites and Zionists can be two sides of the same coin rather than the polar opposites that we might at first assume.

Organisations like the Jewish Socialist Group work hard to defend the Palestinian people against the oppression and violence that they face from the IDF and Israeli State more generally. But they do not do this to, in some way, deny their Jewishness but because they are horrified that murders and atrocities are being committed in their name.

I've always had the suspicion that those who describe others as self loathing Jews for their rejection of Israel are, in fact, projecting and it is they who loath the Jewishness of actually existing Jews who are as diverse, annoying, interesting and human as anyone else. When this old self hatred canard is wheeled out it speaks volumes for the political weakness of the case that Israel deserves support in whatever it chose, chooses and will chose to do.

What Marqusee has to say about the accusation of self loathing, which was even levelled at him by his own father, was more interesting. "But do let me say a brief word for self-loathing. Anyone who entirely lacks this trait is not to be trusted." And this attitude is a valuable thread that runs throughout the entirety of the book, a self aware and self critical attitude that ends up strengthening and hardening his politics rather than undermining it.

As the review in the Independent quotes approvingly "I cannot subcontract my ethics, my relationship with the human race, to a state or a religion – or indeed a political party. For me, being an anti-Zionist is inextricable from being a democrat, a socialist, a humanist and a rationalist."

I think there is a lot to be learned from from this approach. For instance the Green Party recently passed a motion supporting the boycott of Israeli goods as part of the campaign to put pressure on Israel over its collective punishment against its neighbours and its refusal to acknowledge the damage its policies have caused to the ordinary citizens of the region. I supported the motion - although I thought it could have been more thoughtfully phrased.

As you might expect it was a contentious issue and there are those in the Party who were very unhappy about this motion. These Greens have even set up Greens Against the Boycott which has among its supporters some very reasonable people, who I'm in complete agreement with on other issues.

It seems to me that the way to approach these people is to have a dialogue and attempt some understanding, as Marqusee does, rather than denunciations and personalised attacks. I'm certain there will be some common ground and the worst thing that we can do is entrench our positions against each other, despite the fact that there is bound to be other areas where we will have to agree to part company.

Whilst personally I can't be bothered to engage with some of the more rock headed of Israel's supporters if we don't leave the door open to discussion then we accept that there are some good people who, despite themselves, give credence and legitimacy to a dangerous and racist rogue state.

Getting inside the reasons for that is the first step towards a more mature and interesting discussion - and it's my view that whether you find yourself in 100% support of the Palestinian cause or the Israeli this book will help you understand with sympathy those who stand on the other side of the wall.

See also Tami's report of the book launch.
Suggest a topic for the Daily (Maybe) here.

The left on the London Mayoral Candidates

In the second comment to my suggest a topic request (feel free to add more if you so wish) John asks "Urm... this is more left sectariana, but what could you give us the differences between the Green, Left List, tankie, Gallowayite and other platforms for London Mayor? I need to know who to give my second preference to."

Well, despite the fact that this might be leading me into waters I don't necessarily want to go into it would be rude not to oblige. There are three candidates for Mayor that you could consider to be "of the left". In reverse order (in terms of the number of votes they'll get) we have;

Lindsey German (pictured) who is a long serving central committee member of the Socialist Workers Party and probably is best known for being a leading spokesperson for the Stop the War Coalition. Lindsey is probably the most straightforward leftist candidate in that she suffers from unadulterated democratic centralism and so has a very specific kind of relationship to Lenin. She is standing under the newly invented Left List banner.

Sian Berry has excellent leftists credentials and, all things being well, is fully expected to be a London Assembly Member come May 2. Sian is the Green Party candidate and comes from a campaigning, direct action background. She has been heavily involved with protests such as those against 4x4s, the war and trident. You wont hear any fossilised nineteenth century jargon pass her lips but Sian has excellent leftist credentials, more on this soon.

Ken Livingstone is the candidate for New Labour although his journey there has been far from straight forward. Labour stitched up the selection procedure in 2000 to ensure that their candidate, cuddly Frank Dobson (whose political career was ruined by the move), was selected instead of Livingstone forcing our Ken to stand as an independent against them - risking a Tory victory with a split Labour vote. Once Ken had soundly thrashed both Tory and New Labour stooge to become Mayor he set about winning back his Labour membership. He has good (but not excellent) left credentials from the 80's but is probably best defined as a red tinged populist these days.

Both Lindsey and Sian have clearly stated that they are for a second preference for Livingstone. Livingstone is for a second preference to Sian.

There are, of course, those on the left who are not standing for Mayor and I'll do my best to outline their positions as I see them (people should correct me where I'm wrong).

George Galloway and Respect Renewal. Galloway is clearly backing Livingstone and advocates a first preference vote for him. Despite the fact that a first preference for Ken is of the same value as a second preference he has decided not to advocate a first preference for either of the candidates to Ken's left. Renewal has no formal position on this however, and a number of them will be voting for their old mucker Lindsey German, although I'd like to think that with Socialist Resistance's new turn towards "eco-socialism" some of them might consider a vote for Sian.

The Morning Star. The official organ of the Communist Party of Britain has been, in recent years, attempting to broaden its political appeal beyond those who feint with pleasure at the thought of living in North Korea or Albania. Greens and SWP members have not infrequently written articles for the paper and the rigid vote Labour line no longer seems to hold.

However, considering Livingstone wrote a long opinion piece on Wednesday (the day after the launch of his Mayoral campaign) it seems likely that even where the Morning Star has no official line they will be backing Livingstone's campaign above all others, although I'm sure both Sian and Lindsey's voices will be heard in its pages over the next month and a bit.

The Socialist Party. They have two councillors in Lewisham and although their influence does not stretch far and wide across the big smoke they may have sway in some quarters. They have a clear position that people should vote for Livingstone. Unfortunately, the Socialist Party does tend to emphasis its differences with the rest of left a little too strongly sometimes and they have a history of inappropriately harsh attacks against both the SWP and the Greens so its unlikely that they will be advocating a first preference for either the Left List or the Greens in this election.

It will come as no surprise to readers of this blog that I'm for a Sian Berry [1] and Livingstone [2] vote. Whilst I have every sympathy with those who'll be voting for Lindsey German as their first preference, and I do hope she does well, I'm of the opinion that her candidacy has less to do with London and more to do with the SWP's stature in amongst the left. As such I think the venture can contribute very little to the broader political scene.

A strengthened Green vote will lead to more left of Labour assembly members, which will impact the way London is run for the next four years. A good turn out for the hitherto unknown Left List will unfortunately be a soon to be forgotten face saving exercise and nothing more. If we're serious about changing the world for the better rather than simply marking out our leftist territory then, it seems to me, that campaigning for a Green [1] vote is definitely the way to go.