02-Sep-10
Your scribe is humbled to be placed 86th in the annual survey of the Worst Political Blogs in the UK.
Given some of the garbage that's churned out around the internets these days, I consider that a highly impressive showing - but no room for complacency: that bastard Obnoxio is number 5... (and deserved, sir! Very well deserved indeed!)
More problems with the general election administration have come to light in Wolverhampton South West, with the news that one of the marked registers has gone missing. An investigation is already taking place into a mismatch between the number of ballot papers counted and the number issued, with more having been recorded as counted than were officially issued.
The latest news has been reported by the Wolverhampton Express & Star:
A register containing the names and addresses of hundreds of Wolverhampton voters has gone missing...
It contains names and addresses of up to 500 voters along with a mark to say whether or not they received a ballot paper.
Park ward falls in the same Wolverhampton South West constituency, where it appears more than 200 extra people voted than ballot papers were issued.That discrepancy is still unexplained more than three months since the elections. It emerged today the register was revealed to be missing after Liberal Democrat campaigners asked to inspect it.
Colin Ross, the Lib Dem candidate in Wolverhampton North East, said: "We asked to see it so we could get a picture of which areas had voted.
"I am not suggesting that it is connected with the discrepancy in the number of votes compared to ballot papers, but I am concerned that it is missing and would like it to be found as soon as possible."
Although marked registers should provide an important safeguard against electoral fraud and the law lays down specific rules for their safekeeping, the 2005 general election saw many marked register problems and during the last Parliament the complete Glentrothes by-election marked register went missing. For more on both of those see my post from 2009.
More problems with the general election administration have come to light in Wolverhampton South West, with the news that one of the marked registers has gone missing. An investigation is already taking place into a mismatch between the number of ballot papers counted and the number issued, with more having been recorded as counted than were officially issued.
The latest news has been reported by the Wolverhampton Express & Star:
A register containing the names and addresses of hundreds of Wolverhampton voters has gone missing...
It contains names and addresses of up to 500 voters along with a mark to say whether or not they received a ballot paper.
Park ward falls in the same Wolverhampton South West constituency, where it appears more than 200 extra people voted than ballot papers were issued.That discrepancy is still unexplained more than three months since the elections. It emerged today the register was revealed to be missing after Liberal Democrat campaigners asked to inspect it.
Colin Ross, the Lib Dem candidate in Wolverhampton North East, said: "We asked to see it so we could get a picture of which areas had voted.
"I am not suggesting that it is connected with the discrepancy in the number of votes compared to ballot papers, but I am concerned that it is missing and would like it to be found as soon as possible."
Although marked registers should provide an important safeguard against electoral fraud and the law lays down specific rules for their safekeeping, the 2005 general election saw many marked register problems and during the last Parliament the complete Glentrothes by-election marked register went missing. For more on both of those see my post from 2009.
THE council is working in partnership with Shoreline Housing Partnership and The Freemen of Grimsby in finalising a plan for the regeneration of Freeman Street.
A Neighbourhood Development Framework, providing exciting plans for the area is currently out to consultation.
The framework identifies four projects that will kickstart the overall regeneration. These are the development of the Freeman Street district shopping centre, the creation of a public park, housing renewal around Thesiger Street and a Freeman Street Business and Enterprise Zone.
Discussions will soon be taking place with the partners and the Homes and Communities Agency to look at funding opportunities for these and the wider future regeneration of Freeman Street.
Councillor Geoff Lowis, portfolio holder for regeneration and housing said: "This is a very exciting time, we are confident that that we will soon see the start of what will be a long term, but worthwhile, project. The regeneration of Freeman Street is a main priority for North East Lincolnshire Council and our partners. We hope the gradual transformation will make the borough a better place to live, invest, work and visit."
There is not much that would bring me to feel sympathy with a professional Conservative. However the treatment of 25-year-old Christopher Myers – who this week resigned from his post as special adviser to William Hague – has been utterly appalling.
To cut a long story short, the delightful Guido Fawkes set off a huge wave of gossip when he posted some innuendo-stuffed articles querying Myers' qualifications post for his special adviser post. Initially he said it was odd that Durham Graduate Myers "should go from driving William Hague (49) around his constituency during elections, where according to the Mirror, "although he never worked at Tory HQ in London... they became close during campaigns", to become his third Special Adviser at the Foreign Office." Above he posted a picture of his FOI request asking, amongst other things, whether Myers had joined Hague on any foreign trips involving "overnight stays.
Next he explicitly mentioned that Myers was young and gay before deliver the killer punch: that Hague and Myers had "at least once".... shared a twin hotel room. Iain Dale has done a fairly good job of illustrating how ridiculous all this speculation was. Yet the frenzied atmosphere was such that Myers felt compelled to resign, (understandably) citing pressures on his family. Hague, meanwhile, released a deeply personal statement discussing his longstanding marriage, and categorically denying any relationship with Myers.
It seems clear that this frenzied atmosphere – with which Myers felt unable to cope – was drenched in homophobia. It is difficult to imagine such flimsy speculation creating such a stir, had it not tapped into the widespread misconception that gay men carry an air of salciousness and impropreity wherever they go. Or to put it very bluntly, this wouldn't have mattered if more people fully understood that a gay man can share a room with another male without fucking him.
What is dissapointing, then, is how reticent the Tory party have been about defending one of their own in the face of such homophobic crap. William Hague released a statement in which he stood his ground impressively. On the subject of Myers he defended his right to a private life. But nothing more. No assertion that it is OK to be young, gay and involved in high politics. No condemnation of homophobia. Not even the use of the word gay. Todays statement from number 10 follows the same form.
But what is most disconcerting is the number of people who seem to be backing Hague, while saying that it was naive or ill-judged to share a hotel room with Myers. This line has beeen taken by a number of unnamed Tory sources along with John Redwood Since it is perfectly normal for (straight) men to occasionally end u sharing sleeping quarters with other men, such criticism effectively asserts that young gay men should be treated as social lepers, that intimacy and proximity with them should be limited to avoid giving off the "wrong idea".
By accepting the resignation of Myers, and by failing to properly speak up for his right to be gay the Tory Party have sent out a grim message to young gay men who have aspirations of getting involved in politics.
Has the man really learned nothing?
My opinion of Cruddas has gone thru the floor, with his backing D.Miliband. Thank heavens Cruddas didn't stand for the Labour leadership himself: with such poor judgement, he wld have made a terrible Leader, evidently!
Cruddas says he is backing DM because of some warm words DM has uttered concerning communitarianism. Well, I'm a communitarian too - but that is no reason to prefer DM to the only two remotely leftish and greenish candidates in the race, namely EM and Abbott.
For all things Rupert, goto
www.rupertread.net
1. What is the probability of Labour winning under your preferred candidate, relative to the probability under your second preference?
2. How much superior would be a government under your preferred leader to that under your second choice?
3. What are the confidence intervals surrounding answers 1 and 2?
I suspect that honest answers to these questions would be: small, little and wide. But in this case, the outcome of the election just isn't that important.
Instead, the result of the next election, and the shape of the next Labour government, surely depends more upon circumstances outside of Labour's control than it does upon the character of the leader.
Take, for example, Paul's endorsement of Ed Balls, on the grounds that he prioritizes economic growth over deficit reduction.
His support would be entirely reasonable, if we were looking for a new government today. But we're not. The next Labour leader will - at best - only determine policy after 2015. And in this context, Balls' words are less important. Let's say he's right, and that Osborne's deficit fetishism does clobber the economy and - in doing so - leave a big deficit. It will then be clear to everyone that a change in policy is needed. Whoever the leader is will therefore adopt a Balls-style policy - because this will be the only option. Balls' support now for such a policy will make him look perspicacious - though no more so than any other Keynesian - but it does not greatly affect the course of the next Labour government.
In this sense, fact, I fear that the leadership contest is reinforcing the widespread fundamental attribution error that gives us the over-personalization of political issues. This is an especial danger, given that the Labour party has a bad record in judging the character of its future leaders: few of those who think Blair a lying warmonger today thought this was part of his make-up in the 1990s, and most of the party were over-optimistic about Brown's ability to be PM.
Helloo there lovely peeps! It's nice to be back writing again, hope you've had a really great summer and managed to enjoy at least a few rays of sun.
Life for me has been very manic, lots of music (yay) and lots and lots of travelling around (not so yay lol). I've been to Germany, Bristol, back to Germany again (lol), then it's been Woking, Oxford, Bristol, Plymouth, Witney, Cheltenham, Bath, Bournemouth, Brixham, Bath (outside in the pouring rain!!), Newton Abbot, Bristol and Honiton... phew!
As many peeps who know me know I love being so busy, especially with oodles of lovely musical type stuff. I'm one of these odd creatures that get a real buzz out of playing one venue, having about two hours sleep and then whizzing off to the next musical adventure. Having not much sleep would usually make me pretty cranky, but for musical purposes it's perfectly fine with me.
Doing so much travelling has also allowed me to do lots of thinking, which with me is not necessarily a good thing! I'm one of these peeps who's a real worrier. I worry about the craziest of things. If I've nothing to worry about then I'm worried. And yes, it is as annoying as it sounds.
So during my travels I was pondering about all sorts of things. But there was one major thing that was playing on my mind more than usual - and that was the question, am I really good enough? It's something that I've never properly thought about before, because I've always been so driven by my love and passion for music that I've not stopped too long to think about it.
I'm really proud of everything I've managed to achieve over the years and I'm also so grateful for all the amazing peeps I've met along the way. But how do you know when you're good enough? I learnt long ago that music is a never-ending journey and a very steep learning curve that you will never, ever reach the end of. Sounds slightly depressing, but I actually find it a real positive thing as there will *always* be new lessons to learn and new musical stuff to play!
‘But are you good enough?' My mind kept asking. ‘How do you know you're good enough? Hmm??' Actually, I'm not too sure now I think about. What if I'd become so driven by my passion and love for the process of doing and playing music that I'd not actually stopped to think about whether what I was doing was any good or not? It appeared my mind had opened up a whole fresh can of stupid scary thoughts and was having lots of fun emptying the entire contents out me. Bugger.
About a week or so went by and I still couldn't come up with a suitable answer to my question. ‘Just because I am' didn't seem like a good enough response to put my mind at rest. So I carried on my day-to-day stuff, hoping that I'd either find the answer or that the question would just fade away and I'd find something far more constructive to think about... sadly neither happened.
Just at the point where I thought my poor little head would explode off my shoulders, I had a gig with Nicky Swann in Plymouth. The venue where we played was really lovely and we had lots of fun. Even though I was talking and playing and drinking the question was still lurking in the back of my mind and it really did seem like nothing at all was going to make it go away.
At the end of the night we packed up all our things and loaded up ready to depart. Nicky and I were walking up the hill towards the car, chatting about various episodes of TV programs when from out of the blue this very very (very!) drunk woman grabbed my arm and said, ‘I heard what you were saying, about not being good enough!' After I'd got over the shock of being grabbed by some crazy drunk lady in the dark I just laughed as I could see she was a bit worse for wear (to say the very least).
She released her grip around my arm and began to point like her life depended on it. ‘You don't think you're good enough do you?' She then wobbled about a bit and continued, ‘Stop thinking you're not good enough because you're amazing at what you do.' Then the reality of what she was saying suddenly hit home. ‘Holy crap,' I thought, how on earth could this apparently bonkers and hammered woman know so much?
I just starred in amazement that she seemed to know what was playing in my mind. ‘You need to let go of the fear and stop worrying about whether you're good enough or not,' she carried on, still struggling to keep upright. ‘You're a star and if you let go of you're fear and just focus on your passion for what you do you'll really go far.'
I thought it only fair to help her get back to her flat, which luckily was only a few steps away (but for her I think it seemed like a few miles!). I thanked her for all she had said, but she was so pissed I don't think she'll remember any of it, hey ho.
When I got home I just sat on the sofa trying, with my mug of tea, trying to understand what had just happened. Most of the people I told this story to just said ‘oh she's just some crazy old pissed bird, don't take any notice of her!' But to be so accurate was very bizarre.
So thanks to the crazy drunken lady from Plymouth I was able to finally answer this question that had been bugging me for days on end. For me the answer is not to wonder about whether you're good enough, but to just focus on being the very best you can and to always know you can do anything you put your mind to. But I think the most important thing is to let everyone else make their own minds up as to whether you're good enough or not, don't try and guess for them - otherwise you'll end up like me and have a stupid question whizzing round you're brain for days on end.
And let's face it, there's far more important thing to do... like sitting out in this lovely sunshine. Which is exactly what I'm going to do now 
See ya next week!
contribution by Carl Miller
On Sunday, Demos released a report, The Power of Unreason. We looked at the role conspiracy theories play in extremism, violence, and terrorism.
Extremist groups use conspiracy theories to recruit, to justify violent acts and to maintain an ideology that sees violence as the answer to the world they find themselves within.
Conspiracy theories can therefore be dangerous.
They have an important functional value for extremist groups and they play into the social dynamics of radicalization. They create 'the other' that the group defines itself against. They inspire something we call a 'self-aggrandizing siege mentality': where the group sees itself as a tiny colony of true believers pitted against an entirely hostile world.
Overall, they divide and isolate, and it is in these conditions of alienation that extremism and violence find fertile soil. Outside of extremist groups they also drive a powerful wedge of distrust between communities and their elected governments.
This kind of disengagement is not just a problem; it is a danger. Today.
One of the big culprits for the spread of conspiracy theories is the internet. Of course, conspiracy theories like JFK and the moon landings long pre-date the digital age, but the recent explosion of conspiracy theories does coincide with widespread internet use, especially the latest revolution of social media.
Conspiracy theories live in these lawless arenas where peer-review, journalistic standards, and source attribution are largely absent. They are the creatures of youtube, chat rooms and discussion groups.
What to do? Any kind of censorship, or information campaign is wrong and will not work. We can't and shouldn't restrict the information that people encounter. It's a given that we all will be daily bombarded with thousands of pieces of 'counter-knowledge', misinformation packaged to look like fact.
But, although we can't tell people what to think, we can teach people how to think better for themselves.
One of the most important ways to increase our resilience to conspiracy theories is to equip young people with the skills to tell the different between credible claims, and their many imposters. Education must move into this vacuum: what are their sources?
What is the evidence, and how can we tell good evidence from bad? What evidence is being missed out? These are questions every young person must be educated to habitually ask. If people really want to get to the truth, bypassing the basic standards of journalism and open argument is not a good route.
—-
Carl Miller is co-author of the Demos report: The Power of Unreason
“We are at the bottom of the barrel, as are most local authorities.” That's the grim conclusion reached by David Tosh, head of Information & Customer Services at Swansea City Council as he contemplates the increasingly prominent role of ICT professionals in the public sector: looking for savings.
The debate on whether to replace First Past the Post with AV for elections to the House of Commons certainly seems to be warming up. Both sides are seeking increasing media coverage, bloggers from both sides are debating on the internet, and public interest seems to be growing on the issue.
Yet there seems to me one thing missing - an appreciation of the role of the House of Lords, and how it might be reformed.
The reason for this is quite important - the House of Commons does not exist in a vacuum. The AS-level course I teach on Government and Politics stresses the importance of a second chamber as a revising chamber. In particular, there is a constitutional principle that the second chamber should not be a copy of the first.
This raises several questions.
The first is an obvious question for the Liberal Democrats. Having advocated STV for the House of Commons, they appear to also advocate the STV for the House of Lords. Such a position is untenable in my opinion. An elected Lords should not simply be a copy of the Commons, with some different electoral boundaries or different terms of office.
This is where the Alternative Vote (AV) could be useful to the Lib Dems. A logical compromise position would be AV for the Commons, and STV for the Lords (sorry, Senate!). The strength of such an arrangement would be the constituency link is kept in the lower chamber. Meanwhile, the Upper Chamber would have a wide diversity of opinion, with more Lib Dems, and Green and UKIP groups.
Yet this raises an interesting second question. We're about to have a referenda on the alternative vote for the Commons. Why not the Lords at some stage as well?
There seems to be a consensus amongst the political parties about having an elected House of Lords. However, there is also a constitutional consensus that major constitutional changes should be put to the British people It's difficult to argue when the North-East gets a referendum on a regional assembly, there shouldn't be one on Lords reform.
Which leads me to the third question - what happens if we vote in a referendum to keep first past the post but then make the Lords elected by STV with no referenda? Those in favour of First Past the Post will argue that they've won a referendum, and so the system should not be changed, and the Commons remain dominant. Those in favour of STV will argue that a Senate elected by STV is more representative than the Commons, and therefore the new Senate should be the more powerful of the two chambers. Constitutional deadlock could well then ensue.
There seems a sensible balance of power here between two revised chambers, which the Liberal Democrats could sell to other parties. AV in the Commons plus STV in the Lords might just be the right balance of power for a reformed Parliament.
Simon Foster is a Lecturer in Politics in the West Midlands, and the author of several citizenship textbooks.
Harry Potter star, actor Daniel Radcliffe, was one of the Lib Dems' star supporters in the lead-up to the election — and it seems he's sticking by Nick Clegg and the party in government, according to the Voice's favourite online political read, ShowbizSpy.com:
"I'm a very big fan... I don't agree with everything he says, but of all the party leaders, he was the one I voted for," Daniel said. "I thought he was a great speaker and very charismatic and very statesmanlike.
"I'm glad that he is still in a prominent position in British politics because I think he could make a great contribution. He comes from absolutely the right place in terms of what his values are."
It's nice to know the sorting hat still reckons Dan belongs in the Lib Dem house.
So says the New York Times in its detailed report on what the News of the World got up to with phone hacking during Andy Coulson's time as editor:
A dozen former reporters said in interviews that hacking was pervasive at News of the World. "Everyone knew," one longtime reporter said. "The office cat knew."
One former editor said Coulson talked freely with colleagues about the dark arts, including hacking. "I've been to dozens if not hundreds of meetings with Andy" when the subject came up, said the former editor, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The editor added that when Coulson would ask where a story came from, editors would reply, "We've pulled the phone records" or "I've listened to the phone messages."
Sean Hoare, a former reporter and onetime close friend of Coulson's, also recalled discussing hacking. The two men first worked together at The Sun, where, Hoare said, he played tape recordings of hacked messages for Coulson. At News of the World, Hoare said he continued to inform Coulson of his pursuits. Coulson "actively encouraged me to do it," Hoare said.
You can read the full story here.
His Holiness the Karmapa talks about how he was discovered to be the reincarnation of a revered figure in Tibetan Buddhism. In telling his story, he urges us to work on not just technology and design, but the technology and design of the heart. He is translated onstage by Tyler Dewar.
Organising for the Coalition of Resistance
Tonight, 2nd Sept: 6.30 pm
ULU - head for Malet St entrance
Demonstration action deportations of Roma from France
Saturday, 4th Sept: 1 pm to 2.30 pm
French Embassy,58, Knightsbridge, London.
Protest to demand action on global poverty
18th September: 1 pm
London
Old Palace Yard, outside Westminster
People are asked to bring drums, bells, whistles, pots and pans to make a noise for the Millenium Development Goals. The mobilisation will take place just two days before world leaders meet at the UN Millennium Development Goals Review Summit.
Called by Global Call to Action against Poverty and the UN Millennium Campaign.
Green Party, London Fed AGM
Sunday 26th September: 10am-4m.
Seven Dials Club
42 Earlham St, Covent Garden.
Obviously you need to be a party member to come - worth the membership fee on its own!
Joking for Justice (WMD)
October 7th: 7.30 pm onwards
Dingwalls, (Lock 17), Middle Yard, Camden Lock, NW1 8AB
Lineup: Tony Law, Andrew O'Neill, Liam Mullone, Francesca Martinez, Kent Valentine, Hils Barker, Markus Birdman, Matt Kirshen, Charlie Talbot.
Entry fee £15
National Demonstration: troops out of Afghanistan
November 20th, 12 noon
London, (details)
Full assembly details, etc. do not appear to have been finalised.
Coalition of Resistance: National conference
November 27th, 10 am until 5pm
Camden Centre, Bidborough St, London. Details.
BTW, this is post number 701 on my blog!
Pope challenged - Channel 4 TV, Mon 13 Sep at 8pm...Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell presents an hour-long examination of Pope Benedict XVI...three days before the Pontiff's State Visit to Britain.
Summarising the documentary, Peter Tatchell said:"The programme questions the Pope's policies on a range of issues including his opposition to contraception, condom use and embryonic stem cell research, as well the Pope's mishandling of the child sex abuse scandal, his distortions of the life and ideas of Cardinal Newman and his readmission to the church of the holocaust denier, Bishop Richard Williamson.
"It examines the impact that Benedict XVI's pronouncements have had on both the developing and western world - with filming in the Philippines, plus Italy, Germany and the UK.
"Interviewing both critics and supporters of the Pope, many of them Catholics, the programme explores Benedict's personal, religious and political journey since the 1930s, from liberal theologian to conservative Pontiff. It shows how he was once a supporter of the liberalising, reforming Second Vatican Council but has since undermined it, including by the appointment of many ultra-conservative bishops.
"In the film, we go back to the 1960s, when the Pope was a young theologian and lecturer, then known as Joseph Ratzinger. We hear from fellow theologian, Hans Kung, who was with him at university in Tubingen, Germany, and discover the events that led him to become an arch conservative.
"The documentary also includes interviews with British sex abuse survivor, Sue Cox, who was raped by a priest at the age of 13, and the Catholic historian, John Cornwall.
"During his visit to Britain, the Pope will beatify the nineteenth century English theologian Cardinal Newman. We discover the way the Pope is manipulating and distorting Newman's relationships and ideas to serve his own autocratic, homophobic leadership.
"The documentary interviews Chris Olly who is dying of motor neurone disease and Chris Denning, a Nottingham University scientist, who is using embryonic stem cells in a bid to develop new medical procedures to help combat a range of terrible diseases. We also hear a defence of this research by Professor Colin Blakemore. The Pope has condemned embryonic stem cell research and wants it banned.
"In the Philippines, we discover how the Pope's teachings have a social and political impact, restricting contraception, sex education and condom distribution. We hear from a poor Filipino family, headed by Wilma and Ramon, whose following of Papal teaching against birth control has resulted in them having more children than they can care for adequately.
"The Pope provides a serious assessment of the impact of Benedict XVI after five years in office and examines the conflict between some of his key values and those held by people in Britain and the world, including dissent from his policies by many Catholics."We hear from Benedict's defenders in the Philippines and the UK.
"Our programme is not anti-Catholic. I have great sympathy with grassroots Catholics who want a more open, democratic, accountable, liberal and inclusive church. The We Are Church movement is admirable, as is the UK group, Catholic Voices for Reform. I salute them.
"Some of the inspirations of my own human rights campaigns have been Catholic humanitarians, including the editor of the Catholic Worker, Dorothy Day, US anti-war activists, Fathers Daniel and Philip Berrigan, Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador and theorists of Catholic liberation theology such as Gustavo Gutierrez and Leonardo Boff," said Mr Tatchell.
Explaining some of the difficulties that arose during the making of the documentary, Peter Tatchell added:"Most of our interviewees are Catholics; some are supportive of the Pope, others critical.
"Our aim was to include all viewpoints, so we made great efforts to seek the participation of leading Catholic figures.
"When we went to Rome, we requested an interview with Pope Benedict or a senior Cardinal. We were told that such an interview was not possible.
"Alexander DesForges of the Catholic Communications Network in the UK was approached to facilitate an interview with Archbishop Vincent Nichols. Our request was turned down.
"This is very disappointing. We wanted to give the Catholic leadership in the Vatican and in the UK an opportunity to present their perspective. Sadly, they declined our offer
"Although the Catholic Communications Network did put up a spokesperson at the last minute - Fiona O'Reilly, from the pressure group, Catholic Voices - this is not the same as having Catholic leaders defend the Pope and his teachings.
"It strikes me as a sign of weakness that neither the Vatican nor the Catholic Church in Britain was willing to be interviewed in defence of the Pope.
"When church leaders see the programme I suspect they will be surprised by its tone and content. They will probably regret not taking part.
"This is a very thoughtful documentary. Many of the voices we feature are Catholic ones," said Mr Tatchell.
When announcing the documentary in June, Channel Four said:"Human Rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, a long-term critic of the Papacy, will challenge Pope Benedict XVI's beliefs and positions on a range of issues - including condoms, homosexuality and fertility treatment - and examine the impact his policies have had on both the developing and Western world. The programme will give voice to a range of views on the Pope - featuring interviews with both critics and supporters."
Ralph Lee, Head of Specialist Factual programming at Channel Four, said: "The Papal visit in September provides an ideal opportunity to examine the impact of Benedict XVI after five years in office. In keeping with Channel 4's remit to provide a platform for diverse and alternative perspectives, equality campaigner Peter Tatchell will assess the effect of the current Pope's teachings throughout the world and the conflict between some of his values and those held by modern Britain."
The programme, due to air in a prime-time slot in the autumn, is being made by Juniper TV. Samir Shah is the executive producer and the director is Chris Boulding.The film's production company, Juniper TV, said: "Juniper TV is making an hour long documentary for Channel 4 on Pope Benedict XVI to coincide with his State visit to Britain in September. The programme will be presented by Peter Tatchell and be an exploration of the Pope's life - exploring his ideas, values and thoughts. It will provide a thoughtful perspective on the Papacy's present condition, and make a serious assessment of the impact of Pope Benedict's views and policies on Catholics and non-Catholics around the world. To ensure this, we currently plan to film in the UK, Europe and South East Asia."
Further information:
Marion Bentley, Channel 4 - 020 73063747 mjbentley@channel4.co.uk
Peter Tatchell - 0207 4031790 peter@petertatchell.net
Top officers in Stoke-on-Trent City Council were the first casualties in the Authorities bid to save £30million.
14 of its 37 directors and heads of department are to be axed as a part of a major rationalisation programme enabling a saving of some £1million.
The number of Directorates will be cut form 6 down to 4 and they will encompass regeneration, children and young people's services, business services and adult and neighbourhood services.
Cabinet members and councillors were briefed by Chief Executive John van de Laarschot. Council staff were informed by email.
Bless the former PM for reminding us why we despise every sordid molecule of him. Few British leaders apart from Margaret Thatcher have been so completely loathed. He has left his party in a wretched, miserable state, panhandling for votes from people whom its has previously shown contempt for. He has driven the country further and faster to the right than most of his predecessors. He has participated in the international adventurism and vandalism of the most right-wing American administration since WWII, with no regrets. And he has come back with his memoirs, his shitty self-serving redacted diatribe about his kampf, to remind us just exactly what it is about him that is so emetic. To his war crimes, he adds crimes against language and taste.It is appropriate, perhaps, that one of the monsters of our age should communicate his de profundis to us in a style befitting the morning television chat show. The matey populism, the chattiness, and the familiar cliche-riddled inarticulacy, is surely the fitting idiom for a thoroughly modern serial killer. In another age, a moralist, Whig and Gladstonian imperialist of Blair's class would have adopted a manner of expression displaying the fruits of a classical education. Literature would have supplied the dominant tropes of even his extemporary remarks. Today, advertising and public relations are the supreme genres. But there's something else - the discursive style suggests that Blair probably made use of a ghost writer who transcribed his waffling while the former premiere gurgled from the shower or expatiated from the back seat of a limo. Blair would deny this, and has complained that Robert Harris was a 'cheeky fuck' for suggesting that he was such a lightweight as to require a ghost-writer. A plausible alternative is that he used a team of monkeys with typewriters and some unfortunate editors had to piece together the smarmiest copy.
Blair's fat little compendium of pseudo-revelations, attacks on personal acquaintances and colleagues, self-justifying circumlocutions, political polemic, and narcissistic reflections, comes with its own self-destruct button. Comparing himself to the 'people's princess', he says: "We were both in our ways manipulative people, perceiving quickly the emotions of others and able instinctively to play with them." Elsewhere, he informs astonished readers that sometimes politicians must "conceal the full truth ... bend it and even distort it". This being the case, you might suspect that he is not always being honest with his readers, and that the impression he tries to give of opening up and being fully frank is as counterfeit as his 'intelligence' on Iraq. You might wonder what is the point of your parting with a portion of your spending power even for one of the thousands of half price copies that your local WH Smith will be shoving in your direction, if all that's going to happen is that Tony Blair lies to you. Again. When all he's ever done is lie to you, at taxpayers' expense. Will there come a time, you might wonder, when we will stop paying Tony Blair to lie to us?
You would also expect, from the foregoing, that Blair's testimonial should be a masterful display of button-pushing, noodzhing, heartstring-plucking and tear-jerking. At the end of which, the former Prime Minister should emerge as an heroic liberal reformer stoically facing down the forces of conservatism, triumphing against the odds, vindicated by history and the big man upstairs, though privately nurturing a wounded soul. So, roughly, it turns out. From his earliest political and legal education at the hands of Derry Irvine, the eminence grise whom he has described as a 'tyrannical genius', to the scuffles with Gordon Brown, whom he cheerfully patronises, Tony is almost always right, or on the right path. He's macho too. We hear all about COBRA sessions and 'ticking clock' scenarios in which, for example, he came close to blasting a passenger jet out of the skies. White-knuckle negotiating sessions with Ulster's natives are duly described with a certain amount of colonial panache. The tough guy, swaggering, iron-in-the-soul stuff that is de rigeur for former statesmen of his ilk, is all there. But so is the love-me-tender vulnerability. He says he hit the bottle to manage the stress of his job. Boo hoo. Millions of people do that all the time - it's called alcoholism. Like the walrus, he says he cried for his victims in Iraq, before mercilessly consuming every one. He admits to a few 'small' errors here and there, of course. He is mortal after all, like Jesus or, his other role model, Diana.
Even when confessing to errors, though, what is most eminently on display is Blair's cynicism. When he cheerfully admits to lying through his teeth, manipulating everyone around him, he is sure to let us know of the effect this had on policymaking. On the freedom of information act, he tells us that it was an 'imbecilic' mistake because of the way journalists used it to ask questions about what the government was doing. Oh well, never mind our civil rights, Tony, if it inconveniences you in any way. On the fox-hunting business, he says he deliberately sabotaged his own legislation to let some forms of hunting continue, to the ire of Labour colleagues. At the end of these triangulations, he complains that he "felt like the damn fox". Poor thing. Hunted by mad dogs and mounted forces of conservatism, chased through the thickets of political intrigue, always on the brink of capture - but miraculously...
The PM's Tory instincts are also prominent, as he again attempts to whip his party, the public and the world into shape. Having given his support to the coalition's austerity programme, which even the right-wing of the Labour Party is now shying away from, he orders Labour not to 'drift to the Left', as if the big problem for Labour is that it might start representing some of the millions of working class voters that it lost under Blair's watch. And he's pleading with 'the world' not to rule out the possibility of war with Iran. He hasn't had his fill of blood crimes yet. David Cameron, who has falsely alleged that Iran has nuclear weapons, would probably agree. Blair is not only a logical ally of this sham of a government, but is on its right-wing. To Clegg's right on war, to Cameron's right on identity cards, civil liberties and even immigration, Blair has never had any business as part of this country's organised labour movement. That he was ever its leader is a shame and a disgrace. Labour's members, supporters and affiliates should look at his memoirs, look at the way he's conducting himself in the press, preening himself, spouting his ridiculously reactionary opinions as if he hasn't been comprehensively discredited, and say to themselves: "never again".
Protest at his book-signing at Waterstones Piccadilly, next Wednesday, 8th September.
A UK government's decicion to use ODF (Open Document Format) for its electronic documents, would help public administrations overcome vendor lock-in for office applications, says Liam Maxwell, councillor for Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead.
The Sun this morning has some polling from YouGov on attitudes towards Tony Blair three years after his departure. 47% of people think that Blair was a good Prime Minister, 46% that he was a bad one – probably not a bad record. On balance, people tended to think that Blair was likeable (by 57% to 35%), principled (by 43% to 39%) and a good representative for Britain abroad (by 50% to 37%), he fell down on honesty – 44% thought he was dishonest as PM.
Asked what his greatest achievements were as Prime Minister, the minimum wage and bringing peace to Northern Ireland came top by some distance (interestingly, the minimum wage was seen as Blair's greatest acheivement even by Conservative voters, whereas things like his record on the economy and public services were mainly picked by Labour supporters). His greatest failures were seen as failing to tackle immigration and, unsurprisingly, the invasion of Iraq.
Finally, in the context of the leadership election, we asked whether Labour should distance itself from Blair's legacy to get back into power, or whether it would be a mistake for them to turn their back on the legacy of a PM who won three elections. It was a pretty even divide, 30% said Labour should distance themselves, 34% it would be a mistake. Amongst Labour supporters, 59% said it would be a mistake for Labour to turn their back on Blair's legacy.
Meanwhile, there were mixed results on the daily trackers. Government disapproval was the lowest yet for the coalition on minus 4 (38% approve, 42% disapprove). However, voting intention was far more positive for the Conservatives, CON 43%, LAB 37%, LDEM 12%. 6 points is the biggest Tory lead for a fortnight.
Also worth noting is the AV referendum voting intention question from yesterday, which I overlooked at the time. NO is now ahead by 39% to 37%. Still within the margin of error and a huge distance to go, but it suggests the YouGov poll a fortnight ago showing No ahead for the first time was not just a blip.
Anyone whose career or job involves direct contact with members of the public, [ and I include myself in this group] as opposed to being hidden away in the corner of an office with a keyboard his/her only contact with the outside world, is well aware of the pressures that can arise when confronted with irrational, bad tempered, depressed, ignorant or violent people and that`s on a good day.
When that job is as a police officer the temptations to use the authority of the uniform when, as is a major part of policing, in a confrontational situation, must be considerable. More than once I have encountered rude police officers who have adopted a threatening attitude because I have politely questioned an instruction whether sitting in a car whilst somebody is emptying the boot or some other equally innocent and seen to be innocent activity. It is when in contact with law abiding citizens that a police officer is most likely to be perceived as unnecessarily aggressive. The trouble is that when the job requires dealing with villains who could be peaceful one moment and uncontrollably violent the next a distinction between them and the rest of us must be difficult.
And so it seems for 2000 of the men in blue. According to reports in today`s Belfast Telegraph and the BBC that is the number of police officers who have had three or more complaints made against them in the last year. There are about 160,000 police officers in the U.K. so it is a fairly small proportion of the whole.
This information was made under a Freedom of Information request. Why on earth do authorities such as the police force in general not make public this type of information without its having to be dragged out of them? That truly would increase people`s respect for those organisations complying.
I note that a certain Mr T.Blair has been quoted from his newly published memoir that of his time as Prime Minister the F.O.I. Act is one of his regrets. He says it is not practical for good government. Given that most libertarians would assert that the F.O.I. Act was one of the most significant innovations of recent times for the ability of the individual to challenge an authority gone awry this revelation is quite amazing for a Prime Minister who presided over the most authoritarian government since 1945 that Act being a notable exception which did not prove the rule.
I've been prompted by this kind post from Mick Phythian to think again about what eDemocracy is.
Previously, I've been content with this explanation of the differences between eGovernment and eDemocracy.
"To simplify, eDemocracy can be thought of as the application of technology to the legislative branch and other bodies with elected representatives (including the parties and politicians within them), while eGovernment is its application to the executive branch with a greater focus on service delivery and organisational efficiency."
This, I noted, means that both spheres include elements of improving transparency and encouraging participation.
But eGovernment also includes a third focus on collaboration, reflecting the way it is embedded into administrative processes.
The third aspect of eDemocracy, on the other hand, can be described as deliberation, reflecting the importance of shaping and developing opinion in relation to public policy.
But having thought again about those definitions, I think they are too focused on process and structures, and are somewhat lacking in specific outcomes - and outcomes are really what matter in policy questions.
To address this, as Mick notes, it is possible to swing to the other extreme and list a series of issues such as eVoting, ePetitions, crowd sourcing legislation, etc and say that this is what constitutes eDemocracy.
But that suffers from the opposite problem of missing the bigger picture.
So what should the definition be?
To start with the desired outcome, for me the key aim of any policies associated with eDemocracy must be greater public participation in the democratic and political processes, in whichever part of the state they are located (or outside the state for that matter).
eDemocracy therefore might simply be the use of technology to deliver greater participation.
But more can be said about capturing one of the defining characteristics of the internet, which has been its ability to cause major disruption to established processes.
In the world of politics, I think this will eventually manifest itself as upheaval in the traditional systems of political parties and the basis on which legislatures operate.
This will open up political systems and lower barriers to entry, and this is the fundamental mechanism which will make participation easier and result in greater democratic engagement.
Looking back 50 years from now, eDemocracy will be the name we give to the disruption needed to deliver more participation.
It was always obvious that Tony Blair hated the left. His recently published book said nothing new on that front.
What's staggering is how easily he dismisses even close Labour colleagues and ministers.
Jon Cruddas
Jon made quite a name for himself. It was clever political positioning. To his overall political analysis – New Labour had deserted the working class and thus our base – he added a programme for the party. It was clothed in some modernist language, but was ultimately an attempt to build a left coalition out of Guardian intellectuals and trade union activists. However beguiling – and he was smart enough to make it beguiling – it was, in effect, reheated and updated Bennism from the 1980s.
Douglas Alexander
Douglas was and is a very clever guy indeed. I had tried to wean him off membership of Gordon's inner circle; but to no avail. It was a real shame ... But the Gordon curse was to make these people co-conspirators, not free-range thinkers. He and Ed Balls and others were like I had been back in the 1980s, until slowly the scales fell from my eyes and I realised ir was more like a cult than a kirk.
Ed Balls
...He has guts and he can take decisions. But he suffers from the bane of all left-leaning intellectuals. As I have remarked elsewhere, these guys never ‘get' aspiration ... He added a truly muddled and ultimately very damaging party critique. This was the view – I fear tutored by Gordon's inclination in dealing with the party – that I deliberately chose confrontations with the party in order to demonstrate my independent credentials with the public.
John Prescott
At Cabinet, he would occassionally sit like a grumbling volcano ready to erupt at any moment. The proximate cause of the eruption would more often than not be one of the women intervening. Patricia Hewitt was certain to get him moving ... John would make some slightly off-colour remark if he was in a sour mood. I would then bring her back in again, just for the sheer entertainment of watching him finally explode ... He genuinely made me laugh. It was a bit like ‘How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria?' In The Sound of Music, though the similarlity ends there...
Perhaps his most alarming trait was his habit of starting a conversation in the middle – no beginning, no context, no explanation of what the problem was. I remember a time when it looking as if I was going to bring the LibDems into the cabinet ... In storms John. ‘Where's fookin' Menzies?' he begins. It wasn't a promising start...
John Smith
Of course, I had no knoweldge that John would die prematurely. Except that, in a strange way, I began to think he might... I said to (Cherie): ‘If John dies, I will be leader, not Gordon. And somehow, I think this will happen. I just think it will.' Is that a premonition? Not in a strict sense; but it was strange all the same. On Saturday afternoon we went to see Schindler's List...
* * * * *
WTF was the last one about?
And then there' his dismissal of...
recalcitrant union leaders, bolshie MPs, lefty activists and assorted intellectuals whose main contribution was to explain why nothing should change in the name of being real radicals
What does it say about Tony Blair's loyalty to the party and the movement? What does it say about his committment to pluralism within the party?
Even the Spectator Coffeehouse blog admits (which reproduced the quotes) that Tony Blair did "not like the Labour Party one bit".
The new Tesco Extra here in Walkden finally opens at the end of September, with 200 new in-store jobs being created.
I know that many local people were concerned about the effect that the new store – apparently the biggest in Europe – would have on other traders and shops in Walkden town centre. Those concerns are completely legitimate, but as the new store is now built we must hope that it acts as a catalyst for the rest of the town centre, bringing in both new shoppers and new businesses. We shall see.
A little bit of common sense has prevailed with the decision to put the Leigh Guided Busway work on hold. My view on the busway has been clear from the start – this £76m scheme has the potential to cause traffic chaos on the A580 and yet will not make any significant improvement to our public transport infrastructure.
It is completely daft – especially in the current financial climate – to waste such a huge amount of money on a white elephant. The money would be much better spent on improving our local rail infrastructure and local bus connectivity than on an unwanted, unloved and unused guided busway.
Like much of the world, the UK has been undergoing a summer of drought—not as bad as Russia and some other spots, but pretty noticeable nonetheless. Parts of the Northwest show rivers and lakes at their lowest level since the 1960s. We've had a bit of rain recently, but, still, the first half of 2010 was the second driest in nearly a century. But there's an upside. It's great for archeologists. The ground is so dry that contours that would normally unnoticed are now pretty visible. As Reuters comments,From Roman forts to Neolithic settlements and military remains dating to World War Two, English Heritage has been busily photographing the exciting discoveries from the air.
Known as crop marks, the faint outlines of unseen buried structures emerged because of the length of the dry spell, leading the national conservator to label 2010 a vintage year for archaeology.
The outlines show up when crops grow at different rates over buried structures. Shallower soils tend to produce a stunted crop and are more prone to parching, bringing to light the new features.
"It's hard to remember a better year," said Dave MacLeod, a senior investigator with English Heritage.
It's pretty cool, actually—Britain has this great history that goes back thousands of years, and we're learning more about it every day. Too bad we had to learn about it this way.
Westminster Council has gone to market looking for maintenance and support services for its Oracle-based information management system.
To settle accounts once and for all with Federal investigators, HP has paid the US Department of Justice $55m to close the case on alleged fiscal inducements it paid to secure US government contracts.
Demos demonstrates The Power of Unreason
Demos is a New Labour think-tank. Don't have much time to spend on reviewing this report that claims to be research. I suggest that it is theorising rather than research since little critical thinking is evident.
It considers conspiracy theories across the extremist spectrum: "religious, far-right and left, eco, anarchic, and cult-based."
"It is striking that there is considerable overlap and fusion between many of these conspiracies, even across groups that exist at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum." Maybe they're onto something?
The role of the conspiracy theories to governments is not addressed. Weapons of mass destruction that can be activated within 45 minutes, an active weapons programme, liquid bombs, hmdt ... Blair's New Labour and Dubya Bush's administrations were extreme right-wing governments that were hugely dependent on "myths, lies, and conspiracies".
Demos' position is untenable: it is that the government's conspiracy theories should be prevalent above competing conspiracy theories. Surely this is the space for critical thinking and the best argument supported by fact should prevail? Demos starts at the position that governments are virtuous - a position that has been repeatedly demonstrated as untenable.
Demos claim that "a conspiracy theory is not the most plausible account of events based on the available evidence." They are clearly not impartial. For example, the most plausible account of the causes of the Iraq War 2003 - current is that Dubya Bush and Blair lied and lied and lied. That they conspired to mislead is clearly the most plausible account. They did lie and mislead their populations. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no weapons programme. There was no threat. Saddam's Iraq was not in any way associated with terrorism. Is there a more plausible account to these conspiracy facts than Bush and Blair lied to go to war? What is it then?
The Demos report recommends developing skills in evaluation and critical thinking. It is unclear how this would operate since developing critical thinking would also address teh official conspiracies.
Demos recomends that security services be more open. This is commended although many official conspiracies depend on such secrecy.
Civil society must challenge conspiracy theories? This is about Demos' mistaken assumption and contention that there is an absolute truth and also that governments' are virtuous. Why should civil society support official conspiracies?
"Government agents or their allies should openly infiltrate the Internet sites or spaces to plant doubts about conspiracy theories, introducing alternative information." They do already.
Conclusion: It's not 'research'. Don't spend too much time on it.
Conspiracy theories, an increasingly popular dinnertime conversation, are often otherwise dismissed and ignored. At most they are regarded as the amusing yet ultimately harmless hobby of a fringe, irrelevant few. They are neither of these things. They are a powerful social phenomenon. In many contexts they demolish trust between government and communities. In some, they are dangerous.
On Sunday, Demos released a report, The Power of Unreason. In it, we looked at the role that conspiracy theories play in radical and extremist groups. Analysing over 50 such groups, we found conspiracy theories to have a strong functional value that play into the social dynamics of radicalization. Extremist groups use conspiracy theories to recruit, to discredit voices of moderation, and to divide the world into 'us' - a small colony of true believers - and 'them' - the rest of the world. Most worrying, in these contexts conspiracy theories are used to justify acts of violence as the only way of 'waking up' a benighted populace from their acquiescent slumber.
As Hannah Arendt said of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the chief political and historical fact of the matter is that the forgery is being believed (Origins of Totalitarianism, 357). That is more important than whether it is true or not. Although untrue, conspiracy theories, through being believed, are having a very real and often harmful social influence.
Responding to conspiracy theories is difficult. Conspiracy theories are self-sealing; attempts to refute them are seen as evidence of the conspiracy theory itself. Government is especially hobbled in the responses that it can make. Statements on conspiracy theories are not judged on their content, but on the identity of their author. Those that are critical are pre-judged as of course government-sponsored disinformation and disruption campaigns.
The online response to our paper is an interesting micro-study of these processes at work. The paper flew at breakneck speed through conspiricist groups such as 911truth.org, IntelHub and Youtube. The paper appears as a 'straw-man' on these online echo-chambers, where users climb over each other to denounce us as a 'Marxist/neocon/Islamist front group working for a Freemason/Illuminati/Bilderberg backed New World Order' (delete according to taste). They also notice that the Demos logo resembles the 'all seeing eye'. Secretly working for the Illuminati, it would be remiss for us not to display their branding on our logo, of course.
What this reception highlights is the difficulty of any group successfully combating conspiracy theories by itself. There are nevertheless important things government can do, too. As conspiracy theories thrive in the dark, it must work hard to shine the light of public scrutiny on its operations and activities, especially those most cast in shadow: the counter-terrorism and intelligence communities. Yet, any 'top-down' forms of communication are destined to fail. This is why civic society is the most important agent for combating conspiracy theories. It is down to everyone - individuals, charities, social enterprises, and non-governmental organizations - to confront conspiracy theories as well as the lies, distrust, bigotry, intolerance and ultimately violence that they can spread.
Carl Miller from Demos is the co-author of The Power of Unreason.
‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV's readers. Please email voice@libdemvoice.org - voice.hat.libdemvoice.org.spam.com (this is spam bot hidden email address, replace .hat. with @ and remove .spam.com for the real one) if you are interested in contributing.
Federation themed guided tours of four of the city's historic towns will take place this month as part of the national Heritage Open Days programme.
The tours, entitled 'The Past Shaping the Future', will take place around Burslem, Longton, Stoke and Hanley (City Centre). Each tour will tell visitors about key buildings and places that define the history of the towns as well as future plans for their regeneration.
