Recent Articles

The first ever Green-governed council? It could happen soon

On 9th September local elections in Norwich could lead to Greens becoming the largest party on a Principal Authority Council.

If they then form a minority administration, it would be the first time they would have an opportunity to govern in their (in our) own name.

OK, it would would be a minority Green administration in a City Council with relatively few powers and desperately strapped for cash. Challenging times. How would the first Green administration in Britain attempt to rise to the challenge?
continue reading… »

Are the two Eds aligning together on policy?

I was impressed by Ed Balls’ speech last week on economic policies, where he stressed “there is an alternative” to the Coalition’s cuts.

I’ve also been critical of Ed Miliband not saying enough on the issue.

Labour members need to know how each of the leadership contenders will approach the economy – not just in countering the narrative that harsh cuts are needed immediately, but how they would like to re-model the economy in wake of the financial crisis.
continue reading… »

The minister is right to warn press not to follow the lurid gossip

The Telegraph reports on its front-page that “a Cabinet minister is ready to take legal action to halt a series of increasingly lurid but baseless rumours sweeping Westminster over his sexuality … Friends of the minister have warned that he will not hesitate to take “action” should unfounded allegations that he is homosexual, which are circulating on the internet, appear in mainstream media”.

This identity would be considerably more closely guarded from Telegraph readers if the newspaper had not already placed itself at the forefront of those using online sources to spread innuendo with the subtlety of a brick in its Mandrake diary column on Wednesday.
continue reading… »

Campaign launched to #saveNHSdirect

The Guardian reported today:

The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, has let slip that the government is planning to scrap NHS Direct, the hugely popular medical telephone helpline.

While touring Basingstoke and North Hampshire hospital on Thursday, he revealed that the phone service – which this year cost £123m to run – is to be axed.

Until Lansley’s apparent indiscretion, the official government line was that a new free telephone service, NHS 111, would not replace existing local telephone services or NHS Direct but might do so in the longer term if a pilot scheme is successful.

The announcement brought an immediate outcry online, with a website: SaveNHSdirect.co.uk quickly being set up with a petition.

Labour’s John Prescott has also been tweeting heavily with the hashtag #saveNHSdirect.

Sign the petition!

Sunder Katwala predicts this will be another Coalition u-turn

Mr Prescott is aiming to get 100,000 signatures for his petition – a figure which Prime Minister David Cameron said should trigger a Commons debate. Over 3,000 people have signed already

Where did Labour’s lost voters come from?

Tom Freeman has crunched some numbers and come up with some figures on the voters Labour has lost since 2001.They are broken down by socio-economic group, or class as those dastardly Marxists call it, and they are grim reading for Labour Party members (among whose number I do not count).

He has produced absolute numbers of voters lost, but I think something relative is more useful. Think about it, Labour has always attracted more votes from class DE than from AB, so any general declines will show up as a larger absolute figure even if the trend for each class is identical.

Like Tom, “I’ve assumed a consistent electorate for all three elections of 2010 size and social structure: 44.4 million people, of whom 27% are social group AB, 29% C1, 21% C2 and 23% DE.”

continue reading… »

Spectator & Pollard apologise over libel

The Spectator magazine publishes this today:

Stephen Pollard and the Spectator apologise for the unintended and false suggestion in a blog published on 15 July 2008 that Islam Expo Limited is a fascist party dedicated to genocide which organised a conference with a racist and genocidal programme. We accept that Islam Expo’s purpose is to provide a neutral and broad-based platform for debate on issues relating to Muslims and Islam.

It has also published an unrelated apology on the same day regarding this:

The Spectator apologises to Professor Moore for certain postings by contributors using pseudonyms “CWBPI” and “Michael” under our “Questioning the Aids Consensus” blog in October 2009. The comments were removed following a complaint by Professor Moore. We are happy to accept that these comments were both abusive and untrue. The Spectator has agreed to make a donation to a HIV/AIDS charity.

Regarding the first apology, a press release by Islam Expo states:

On 15 July 2008, the Spectator website published an article by Stephen Pollard (editor of the Jewish Chronicle) entitled “Demos and Genocide”. That article unfairly and falsely referred to Islam Expo as a racist, fascist and genocidal organisation. As is well-known, we at Islam Expo host exhibitions which explore a wide range of issues relating to Islam and Muslims and which seek not only to educate visitors about the positive and progressive aspects of this religion, but also to provide a neutral and all-inclusive platform in which people of all races, religions and viewpoints can gather to discuss topics relating to Islam without fear of reprisal or restriction. The Directors and organisers of Islam Expo had worked, and continue to work, hard to establish a good reputation for providing a venue where people can attend our events and debate openly, building an understanding and mutual tolerance. These events are also attended by a wide range of leading academics, politicians and journalists.

Islam Expo was therefore justifiably outraged and dismayed to learn that we had been referred to in this way. As neither Mr Pollard nor the Spectator agreed to our initial request for an apology, we had no option but to seek vindication via litigation.

It’s also worth noting that Stephen Pollard referred to material first published on the Harry’s Place blog in that post.

The Judgement is here (via Chris Brooke)

via @earwicga

Guardian falls for classic misdirection on Labour leadership

The Guardian reports today:

David Miliband poses the greatest threat to the Conservative party of all the candidates in the Labour leadership contest, David Cameron has said in private remarks that could change the dynamic of the campaign just days before millions of ballot papers are posted.
…
A well-placed source told the Guardian: “David Cameron said the candidate he hoped for was Ed Miliband, and the candidate he most feared was David Miliband.”

Isn’t it convenient the “well placed source” said that just when the ballots go out? If I was that journalist I’d think – ‘hmmmm, is there an agenda here?‘
continue reading… »

Increasing benefits helps people get jobs

Right-wing think tank boss Neil O’Brien writes that:

“If you give people more benefits, they will be better off today. But if that encourages them to stay on benefits, rather than find work, they will be poorer tomorrow. “The question to ask,” as Nick Clegg wrote, “is what its dynamic effects are, particularly across the generations. How does it increase opportunities? Will it unlock the poverty trap or deepen it?”"

Let’s have a look at what these dynamic effects might be.

Between 1996 and 2009, benefits for lone parents were increased substantially. So according to the Clegg/O’Brien theory, we would expect more of them to be encouraged to stay on benefits. Over the same time period, benefits for single adults of working age decreased in real terms. The same theory would suggest that this would lead to more people finding work.

Here’s what actually happened:

In 1996, during a time of economic growth, 45% of lone parents were in work. In 2009, when Britain was in severe recession, 57% of lone parents were in work. continue reading… »

Women’s group needs help for acid victims

SBS – the iconic west London based women’s group – has launched a fund raising appeal to support two women from India who were the victim of a horrific acid attack. I can’t publish the pictures here because they are that horrific.

Below is a letter they sent out to supporters, and wanted us to publish here:

* * * * * * * * * *
Dear Friends,

I am writing to you in the hope that you will be able to donate generously to finance the medical costs and rehabilitation of Samar (31) and Juwariya (25) Atique whose young lives and hopes were brutally crushed in October 2009 by two men who threw a jug of acid on their faces as the women were returning home from a day’s work in a rickshaw.

Their crime – Juwariya had turned down a marriage proposal from one of the men!

They sustained severe burns and injuries to their faces, their eyes and their upper bodies. In acid attack cases, the victims should be hosed down gently with a continuous stream of water immediately to stop the acid continuing to burn into their flesh. But they did not get treatment for five hours after the incident because the woman doctor was threatened with a similar attack by these men and their families.

They may be blind for life. They will need to have reconstructive surgery on their noses and lips. Their eyelids were burnt away so they also suffer from itching and dryness in the eyes. Their first operation did not take place till 5 months after the event. To date they have had 3 operations and they will need many, many more. They live in Delhi but they have to travel to a hospital in Chennai, nearly one and a half thousand miles away, where they are getting subsidised treatment. One of the sisters is suicidal, they are both suffering from depression but neither of them has had any counselling sessions as yet. Post-operative care and rehabilitation will take years.

They were independent working women, whose incomes contributed to the expenses of a joint family of 11 people. Samar worked for an IT company and Juwariya, ironically ran her own beauty parlour. One other sister and brother have had to give up their jobs in order to look after them leading to a loss of four incomes.

The reduced family income is less than the monthly cost of routine medical expenses like bandages, antibiotics and painkillers, let alone the cost of going to Chennai for surgery, let alone the costs of daily life. So far, they have managed with donations and loans from family and friends. Poverty has compounded the consequences of violence.

This case came to the attention of Southall Black Sisters earlier this year.

Although we do not usually have the capacity to run international campaigns, we felt that the horrific nature of this particular attack served as a salutary reminder of the extreme violence that women round the world continue to face should they make the smallest strike for freedom and assert their most basic rights, in this case, the right to choose their own partner/spouse.

The immediate target for fundraising is £21,000 for microsurgery to be carried out on Samar’s eyes. There is some hope that her sight may be saved although Juwariya’s is irretrievable. Of this sum £11,000 has already been raised.

However the very rough total estimated costs of all surgery, including longterm rehabilitation, are: £250,000. It is impossible to be precise partly because every decision for futher surgery depends on preceding operations. The following are some examples of costs:

Average monthly cost of care: £1350 (bandages, medicines, nursing, local hospital visits, nutritious food)
Each visit to the Chennai hospital: £12,000 (based on their previous trip)
Every return flight to Chennai costs: £985 (for 3 people)
Counselling: £30 per session

Thank you.

Rahila Gupta
(on behalf of Southall Black Sisters)
* * * * * * * *

Please click on the Justgiving link below and follow the instructions.

http://www.justgiving.com/SOUTHALL-BLACK-SISTERS-TRUST0

Malcolm X backs Tory schools plan

I saw the Spike Lee biopic when it came out, of course. But other than that, I have to admit to not knowing a lot about revolutionary icon Malcolm X. That’s pretty remiss for a leftie, so to put matters right, I am reading ‘By any means necessary’, a compilation of the 1960s black nationalist leader’s speeches in the last year of his life, following his break from Nation of Islam.

The book was published by the US Socialist Workers’ Party, at that time a Trotskyist grouping, and is designed to show that Malcolm X’s thinking was evolving in the direction of Marxist socialism. That doesn’t come across as very likely.

No class-based analysis whatsoever is in evidence. Indeed, the focus is on community self-organisation, and it does strike me that some of the ideas expressed would not sound out of place in a flagship speech from a Big Society Cameron Conservative.

continue reading… »