jump to navigation

Green Party Conference September 6, 2008

Posted by CamdenKiwi in : Green in the City, Politics , 3 comments

My head is full after a day at the Green Party conference. Its the first time I’ve ever been to a large Green meeting in the UK, and I’m not quite sure what to expect.  Lots of consensus decision making and very very long speeches?

I start worried.  Some people are getting very hung up on the data protection act and policy about campaigning for internal elections.  That’s not going to save the planet, now is it?   It gets better with a workshop on housing policy and free school meals.  Surviving climate change will need a strong dose of social justice in with the environmental policies, which is why a Green Party is so much more than just another environmental pressure group.   Later, a motion was passed to set the minimum wage at 60% of the average, which is close to the NZ Values Party idea of a minimum income for all, and would go a long way towards improving social equity.

The treasurers report sparks more interest than I would have expected.  Apparently they’ve hired a professional fundraiser to raise money for election campaigning, which seems sensible enough but doesn’t quite sit comfortably with Green ways of doing things.

Its all remarkably well organised.  Sessions start on time, with effective chairing making sure everyone keeps to the point and noone rambles on for too long.  At the start of each session they have a minutes silence in ‘attunement’ when you’re supposed to focus yourself to the task at hand.  A bit hippy perhaps, but it seems to get everyone quiet and concentrating.

The highlight of the day is Caroline Lucas, the new (and first ever) Leader.  She’s a credible, charismatic speaker, who sounds like she could run the country but still has a touch of the radical about her.  Many of the elected politicians are impressive - Caroline Lucas, but also the other MEP, Jean Lambert, and the two GLA members Darren Johnson and Jenny Jones.  The place is full of articulate, interesting councillors from all over the country.

More plenary sessions, then a break because I couldn’t be bothered with hustings for the election of party officers.  For me, the last session of the day was the launch of Jean Lambert’s new report on how employment will be affected by climate change, including speakers from the TUC and British Wind Energy Assocation.  The BWEA speaker, Dr Gordon Edge, attracted the most interest, talking about the effect of nimbyism on the industry and the problems with the planning process.  He seemed much more interested in industrial scale windfarms than smallscale microgeneration, probably reflecting his organisation and the limits of the technology.  The UK is hoping to be a major player in offshore wind energy, and may still have a chance to be involved in the manufacture of offshore turbines.  The onshore market has been lost to Germany and Denmark.

Prof Tom Thomas, on the same panel, mentioned that Boris has cut funding for the London Energy Partnership, another example of Tory ideas of being green.

The real blog of the conference, with a lot more detail, is over here.  Tomorrow, we’ve got voting reform, Green Party Women, and, I hope, the chance to meet one of my favourite bloggers, Tom Reynolds of Random Acts of Reality.  It’s odd, not a lot about climate change or the environment.

Protesting Against the Dalai Lama?? May 27, 2008

Posted by CamdenKiwi in : Miscellany, Politics , comments closed

I’d been expecting Chinese protests at the Dalai Lama’s teachings in Nottingham, but not a row of about 20 monks and nuns carrying placards saying ‘Stop Lying’ and ‘Dalai Lama Give Religious Freedom’. Shouting loudly, they weren’t getting much attention from people going into the teachings. I went up and asked one what he was protesting about. He kept shouting and pointed at a nun standing at the end of the line. She claimed that the Dalai Lama was making it impossible for Tibetans to carry out a particular religious practice, for political reasons.

This is about the worship of a Tibetan deity, Dorje Shugden. And here we delve into the opaque world of Tibetan religion and politics. Dorje Shugden may, or may not, be a manifestation of Manjushri, the Bodhisattva (saint) of Wisdom. He may, or may not, be a 17th century lama who remains as a protector spirit of some sort. It’s a long way from the rarefied world of Nagarjuna’s ideas on the nature of reality and the philosophical text His Holiness has been teaching this week.

In Bodhgaya in 1998, I heard His Holiness teach 100,000 people, most of them Tibetans. At that time, he explained that he believed that the Dorje Shugden practice was a large part of the karmic cause of the problems now facing Tibet, and would also shorten his own life. He asked people not to do it. He also said that if people wanted to do it, they could, but please would they not attend his teachings or religious ceremonies.

That is a lot more powerful than it sounds. Many Tibetans, and westerners who are Buddhists in the Tibetan tradition will do whatever the Dalai Lama asks them to do. His political power may be limited, but his influence is huge. There are reports that Tibetans who continue to carry out Dorje Shugden practice are ostracised, unable to get jobs and suffer persecution, though Amnesty International do not think this is bad enough for them to get involved.

So where does that leave this woolly liberal then? A man who is revered world-wide, champion of a cause for which I have the utmost sympathy, who I admire greatly, is accused of something like this.

It strikes me that if you really believe in karma and the efficacy of religious practice to influence the world outside your own mind, then you have to bear the consequences. One of those consequences surely has to be a limitation on freedom to practice anything, no matter how harmful it might be to others. Clearly enough Tibetans agree that the Dalai Lama is right that this practice is harmful, and those doing it at least believe that it is worth doing. If you operate in that sort of worldview, continuing to do the harmful practice is a bit like playing your stereo very loud all weekend - you might enjoy it, but the neighbours don’t, and eventually, if they are more powerful or have greater authority than you, you will have to stop.

Religious freedom has its limits, and those limits have to be felt when the religious practice has harmful consequences beyond the practitioners. I wouldn’t agree, say, with the re-imposition of parish tithes in the name of religious freedom. It’s just that in this case it operates inside a worldview where karma is a law of nature and religious practices have real effects. It seems that both sides of this argument share that worldview, but the dispute is over the nature of the effect of the practice. The stakes are high, and is it really unreasonable for the Tibetan authorities to try to do something about it?

Donating for Burma May 12, 2008

Posted by cathrynsymons in : Politics , add a comment

I have a poster of Aung San Suu Kyi in my hallway, given to me by a friend who has spent a lot of time working with Burmese refugees on the Thai border. She is an inspiration, a symbol of perseverance against the most intractable of obstacles.

It’s taken me a week to decide that it is worth donating to Burma. Not because I don’t want to, but what’s the point if aid is just seized by the junta and doesn’t get to the people its intended for? If there was ever a case for military intervention, this looks like one to me. I imagine squads of marines in powerboats speeding up the delta with food parcels, medicines and perhaps medics, rather than airdrops. I’ve no idea if that’s possible. It would be a far better use of the armed forces than anything in Iraq. It might even justify its existence.

So, I’m with Nick Cohen of the Observer on this one. Dithering and handwringing are no good at all. Our government has already established that it doesn’t care about sovereignty when it suits. It’s time to do something good for a change.

If you can’t command an army, you can at least donate through the Disasters Emergency Committee, which includes Oxfam, Christian Aid and other charities.

And so the Muppet Show starts May 3, 2008

Posted by cathrynsymons in : Camden, Politics , add a comment

It was enough to keep me under the duvet this morning, waking up to see that Boris Johnson, famous for the muppet haircut, riding a bicycle and being very entertaining on Have I Got News For You, is now Mayor of London. The blues descend.

The results make interesting reading. The turn out was a lot higher than last time, showing the effect of a controversial, engaging campaign. There is received wisdom is that a high turnout favours the left-leaning parties, but this time, it seems to have favoured the Tories.

Often close-run elections squeeze out the smaller parties, and that seems to have happened here. In the Assembly elections particularly, and to a lesser extent in the Mayoral ones, the swing to the Tories has been at the expense of the Lib Dems and UKIP, rather than Labour. The Greens held up well, as did the other, less appealing but sadly significant small party. Obviously Ken Livingstone has a large personal following which won’t be swayed by the general turning away from Labour, but its hard to see why that would apply in the Assembly party vote where Labour kept the same number of seats . UKIP has pretty well imploded over the last couple of years, so their disappearance isn’t surprising. Perhaps the lacklustre Paddick campaign has affected the wider Lib Dem vote, while the far more exciting Ken show has at least helped to keep Labour afloat.

And finally, its wonderful to see we have another Green on Camden Council, with Alex Goodman winning the Highgate Ward by-election, and joining the other two Greens on the Council.

Gaming the BBC April 28, 2008

Posted by cathrynsymons in : Politics , add a comment

As I write, the top 9 posts recommended by readers on the BBC’s Have Your Say about the London mayoralty are, terrifyingly, pro-BNP. I hope that just means that BNP supporters are spending too much time online and not getting out there canvassing.

If you’ve got a moment, everyone can play that game.  Just pop on over through the link above, and recommend a few posts you like.

Somers Town needs Council Housing, not Scaremongering April 27, 2008

Posted by cathrynsymons in : Camden, Politics , add a comment

Posters have gone up around Somers Town suggesting that the new British Library International Science Site (BLISS) medical research centre planned for the land behind the British Library would be an inner-city version of Porton Down, and an article in the Guardian Education supplement last week sent me off to the local Community Centre on Saturday morning, where staff from the medical institutions involved were available to talk to local people about their plans.

I firmly believe that the BLISS should not be built on that site, because this area desperately needs more affordable housing, and the government should stand up to its promise to build council homes.  There’s a strong local campaign underway trying to make that happen.  However, it hadn’t occurred to me that the likes of the Medical Research Council or Cancer Research UK would be dangerous neighbours.  After all, they’re both already in the area anyway, and there are a lot of other medical research facilities around here.  It’s a major local industry.

Talking for nearly an hour with Sir Leszek Boryziewicz, the CEO of the MRC, completely upheld that opinion.  He is a tall, quietly spoken gentleman.  He introduced himself, I thought, as ‘Les’, saying the s oddly so it must have been ‘Leszek’.  He clearly, but without being patronising, explained the type of research they are likely to do, the sorts of security that would be in place and the risks involved.

A scientist rather than a PR person, he qualifies his statements unless he is absolutely 100% sure of something.  I find that reassuring, though it may seem uncertain.  So, because the committee working out what science would be done in the new centre has yet to report, he won’t guarantee that this will not be a category 4 lab as discussed in the Guardian article, though he thinks it unlikely.  Diseases like Ebola and Lassi Fever are not even dealt with in civilian facilities in the UK - if there was any work with them, it would be in a military facility like Porton Down.   There is no reason for Somers Town to be patrolled by armed police, as suggested in the posters which have appeared.

It is unlikely that the level of hazard here will be any higher than it is in many labs and hospitals around Bloomsbury and Holburn.  The MRC does research on HIV, malaria, tuberculosis and flu, and it is likely that would continue in the new lab.  Given that Somers Town has a very high incidence of tuberculosis that is perhaps something we should support.

Sir Leszek is a man who was knighted for inventing a vaccine against cervical cancer, and likes Ben Goldacre.  If it turns out that we can’t make council housing happen, then I’ll be very pleased indeed to welcome him to the area.

Airports, the Olympics and Tibet March 29, 2008

Posted by CamdenKiwi in : Politics , add a comment

In a week where chaos reigned at the opening of Heathrow Terminal 5, China managed to smoothly open not one major international airport, but two. Beijing’s Terminal 3 has been slowly dealing with more flights over the last month, and in Shanghai, the new Terminal 2 for Pudong Airport opened apparently without a hitch on Wednesday.

Of course, the British media were all over the problems at Heathrow, whereas China’s media are tightly controlled. But they are international airports, so you’d expect some mention somewhere in the blogosphere if there had been big problems. I couldn’t find any.

There can be no doubt that the Beijing Games this summer will be the best organised in history. China, whatever is thought of their system of government and politics, is a formidible force and not to be treated lightly or with disrespect.

This is why they must be tackled on Tibet now. If a boycott of the Olympics helps, then a boycott of the Olympics must happen. Those who say that the Olympics are about sport and fellowship and should not be disrupted by politics are naive in the extreme. Hosting the Olympics is a political statement of national and civic pride. The Nazis knew this in 1933, when they started the torch procession ‘tradition’ (hat-tip to the wonderful Prof. Mary Beard for that one). Even if they were hosted in Canada, they would be a political event. Hosted by China, as with the USSR and USA in the 80s, it is unavoidable, and one of the few ways that small places can seriously challenge these superpowers.

But, we must take care to make sure that protests are about Tibet, and not about some sort of xenophobic fear of people who build airports well. It is very very hard to get an idea of how Chinese people see Western attitudes towards Tibet without being able to read Chinese, but I can’t imagine they like having their country vilified any more than anyone else does, and they certainly seem to have a low opinion of the Western press as this youtube video shows. I’m not sure about the claims they make here, but it would not be the first time our media misbehaved. Over 27000 comments, the first few pages mostly in support, and supportive video responses all point to Chinese anger at the way they are protrayed.

It is time to support Tibet, and the Dalai Lama, in every peaceful way we can. Not because everything in the western media is true, or because we’re scared that Western power is waning, but because this is probably the last chance Tibet has for religious freedom and self-determination.

Pray for Tibet March 14, 2008

Posted by CamdenKiwi in : Politics , add a comment

Over a decade ago I went to India on a business trip. One weekend, I took an overnight bus to Karnartaka state in the South and visited the monastery of a friend. This monastery had been established after Dalai Lama and many of his followers (including my friend) went into exile in 1959. Over the next forty years, the people had established a community in exile, carrying on with their lives while always remembering the mountains from the dry plains of the south.

And now, on the 49th anniversary of the original uprising and exile, and as China rises to become an economic superpower, Tibetans are rising again. And paying an enormous price. The original of the monastery I visited, Drepung, is reported to be under siege by Chinese forces with many arrests.

The spectacle in Beijing this summer will draw the eyes of us all to China. Can we, and our governments, be persuaded to look beyond the sporting glamour?

For the sake of all sentient beings

Is Facebook Evil? January 15, 2008

Posted by CamdenKiwi in : Internet, Politics , add a comment

A thinkpiece by Tom Hodgkinson in the Guardian yesterday raises some interesting points about Facebook, and he certainly makes his biases very clear with his opening sentence. “I despise Facebook”.

To the prejudices first. Hodgkinson is clearly one of those people who thinks that Facebook is somehow seeking to replace normal human contact. If I send a little ungrammatical note to a friend one day, I will probably be down the pub with them the next. Except of course, my mother in New Zealand who loves playing scrabble and my mate in Glasgow with a penchant for sheep-tossing. If Facebook helps me keep in touch with friends outside London, is that really so bad? Yes, there probably are sad people who spend too much time with it instead of going out, but then I spent Saturday night with YouTube, a glass of wine and the cat. It’s January. It’s cold. Noone’s got any money. And I found a very good, if rather disturbing play starring the exceptionally gorgeous David Tennant. Worked for me, but I digress.

Some people may compete about the number of friends they have, or ‘construct artifical representations of who I am in order to get sex or approval’. If Hodgkinson thinks Facebook is unusual in that, then he’s not spending enough time in bars.

That Facebook is fundamentally a way of collecting users and data about them to allow well-targetted marketing is not news, though there is a definite danger in people allowing too much data to be freely available. It’s free for users, is not a charity and so has to make money somehow. In fact, Facebook knows a lot less about me than Amazon does. Amazon has huge amounts of data about my reading, music and film-watching preferences, and it uses this to send me emails about books, CDs and DVDs I might like to buy. Its emails are sufficiently on the mark and interesting that I read them. I also take its suggestions and buy them from Foyles. If Facebook can do that, rather than send me advertisements for products to increase the size of organs I do not possess, its fine by me, and a small price to pay for the service they provide.

If you give all your ‘id card information and consumer preferences’ to Facebook, you are opening yourself up to advertisers, of course. Facebook doesn’t even have my address. It knows I’m a ‘fan’ of Dr Who, but I wouldn’t touch the ill-fated Beacon. It knows less about my buying habits than Amazon or House of Fraser. It does have access to my Pandora and StumbleUpon accounts, so it perhaps knows my music tastes and has some idea of sites I like. If it can construct a well targetted campaign out of that, all power to it. At least its ads are small and easily ignored.

Hodgkinson makes a big deal out of the privacy policy on Facebook. It would be worth his looking at a few other website’s privacy policys. Outside the remit of the Data Protection Act, noone on a free site is going to take responsibility for guaranteeing that your data is secure or that the government can’t look at it. And its rather sensible of them to explain that deleting something on the internet is not what it seems. Stuff is cached all over the place - in the browser, in google and other search engines where sites are open to them (which Facebook is not), in proxy servers, in other machines on your ISP or employer’s network. If you want to opt out of privacy policies like facebook’s, you probably have to opt out of the internet.

And finally, we come to the point of the article. The venture capitalists funding Facebook are a pack of ultra-libertarians with some fairly extreme views. Is this really surprising? Its venture capitalism, where people with money take big risks to make more. I imagine a great many venture capitalists operating in internet based businesses are down that end of the spectrum. Take a look at the other companies supported by the VCs funding Facebook, Accel Partners, and Peter Theil who manages Founders Fund. Without the firms these people fund, the web would be a very different place. No flash, no real audio, for starters.
Worse still, Accel PArtners shares a director with the CIAs venture capital firm. This isn’t a covert operation, sneaking arms into petty dictatorships. Its an outfit which explains on it’s website that the CIA fund it, and that it is about ‘accelerating information for the intelligence community’. Not sure I’d want them investing in my company, but that’s academic, and they’re very open about what they are. And they haven’t invested in Facebook.

The fear is that sites like Facebook are somehow replacing the ‘real’ world with a virtual world in which mega-capitalism controls everything.

Do they replace the real world, or do they enhance it? Surely, that depends on how you use them. If all your friends are on Facebook, and your main way of interacting with them is via Facebook then you would have a big problem. But if you use it, as most people seem to, as just another tool, then it is hardly such an issue.

Companies which provide the software infrastructure which others use, like Facebook, Ebay, aspects of Google, Myspace and all the rest are building the web, and yes, some people are making enormous amounts of money from it. They are assuming a level of power which is not desirable in a liberal society.

This is a serious problem, but opting out of Facebook won’t make any difference. It is far deeper than Facebook, and to really insulate oneself from it, one would have to opt out of the web. And probably banking, Oyster card use and most interaction with the government. Now, there’s a libertarian position.

There’s a lot to think about in here, but loading it onto Facebook isn’t the answer when the problem is in fact with the whole system. Personal ownership of personal data would be a good first step, as would better acceptance of non-advertising based models for website use.

As we move into an increasingly online age, that’s a problem that needs resolving.

Crisis over Christmas to operate in Camden December 9, 2007

Posted by CamdenKiwi in : Camden, Politics , add a comment

It’s good to hear that the Christmas spirit has prevailed, and Camden Council have changed their minds and are letting Crisis go ahead with their Crisis over Christmas centre on Euston Rd this year.   I’m not sure what made the difference, but am very grateful to St Pancras and Somers Town Ward councillor Roger Robinson for raising it with the powers that be.

Sometimes shining a little light in these dark corners helps in very meaningful ways, and I’m very happy to be proved wrong in my opinion of those involved in this.