The Daily (Maybe)

This article has just appeared in the ever improving Green World that's landing on door mats all over the country as we speak. I thought I'd reproduce it here as it involves you lot (I'm using my text so there might be a couple of minor alterations in the magazine itself).

The internet is a powerful educational tool that is changing the way we access information. 'Bloggers', writing in the 'blogosphere' were more accurate about the outcome of the Iraq War than the Government involved in waging it. Jim Jepps looks at the potential for blogging to become a powerful green tool for democracy and campaigning.

foraptivate[i-foraptivate]If you think that Twitter is just the noise a bird makes and social networking means getting another round in making that first step into using the internet as an effective campaigning tool can be daunting. For many the stereotype of a Blogger is someone in the early hours of the morning furiously typing out irate messages whilst dressed only in their underpants. However, this is only 90% of the story.

Most of us know that the net is important but answering the questions of how and why is much more difficult. So even when we do set up a site or Facebook group it sits there neglected and unloved, of no real use to anyone, when it should be making an impact with real people in the real world.

It’s not that long since the web began to transform itself into a utility that almost everyone could use. Gone are the days when you needed skills and money to set up a workable and half decent website. Companies like Blogger and Wordpress can provide easy to use free templates that allow anyone to set up a site. It’s no longer the case that someone needs to know how to code in order to gain a workable web presence.

That has meant there has been a flowering of discussion and ideas on the net with people being able to connect to resources, engage in debate and learn about events both near and far in a way that was never before possible. This means the web has become a vital political tool that we ignore at our peril, but that very newness has meant sometimes it takes experimentation to get things right.

That blossoming pluralism is both its strength but also why traditional political campaigns have found it difficult to utilise properly because they’re too centrally directed, too distrusting of their members to give them free reign.The decentralised ethic of the Green Party fits the new technology like a glove if only we are ready to embrace it. This redistribution of resources and ideas allows activists to download materials in a cheap and easy way and persuade armchair sympathisers that there is something they can do about the things they feel passionately about.

It is possible to reach and mobilise wider audiences in a far more immediate way. The Green Party election broadcast was seen by far more people than those who happened to catch it on TV because we had it available for anyone with access to the net at a time of their choosing. More than that it meant that in places like Norwich they could produce their own broadcast, featuring local candidates and focusing on particular local issues at almost zero cost. That’s phenomenal and something we can direct towards both electoral work and taking on the issues that matter to us directly.

Whether it’s mobilising against George Bush, distributing window posters or building support for an emergency campaign, used in the right way the web can help us make a real impact. But it’s also true that a lot of effort that we put into our web presence is time poorly spent.

If you look at Facebook for instance, a site that’s the subject of contempt and adulation alike, it’s difficult to use well in this context. The Green Party has an excellent supporters’ page with over a thousand members and continuous, interesting discussions but it also has some rather lacklustre and underused pages that were set up purely on the basis that it’s so easy to do.

Usually these pages are for local candidates that are just too small to keep up a decent momentum, which means even a lively campaign can become associated with a page that gives the appearance that there is far less support out there than there really is. We should not be afraid to delete these pages. Facebook can be a useful tool when directed at issues that people want to debate passionately, but seems to have less purchase when it comes to gathering support for Parliamentary candidates.

Whilst we should always recognise that spreading the word on the net is no substitute for "real world" campaigning, especially for those without the time or inclination for the web this ability to talk to people direct, without having to go through the mediating lens of the media, is something that could potentially transform our ability to campaign effectively, cheaply, and in a environmentally friendly way.

We even need to explore and engage with services like twitter (that provides updates direct to your friends/family/supporters) and play to the strengths of online social networking - which is a bottom up and pluralist approach, organised and run by the very people who use it. We can reach out to a wider progressive community who are open to our ideas if only we take that step that allows them in.

5 comments Labels: Blogging, Green Party, Media

Did anyone else see this? I've long held that photoshop is the tool of the devil and here we can see how it's been used by The Sun to ethnically cleanse a royal photo story... although they left the guy's knee in the photo, and removed the boat's engine - not such great work by The Sun's falsification of history department.

metro_sun[i-metro_sun]Can't have the heir to the throne being ferried about by some, well, you know, man in a hat can you? They were probably kicking themselves that they couldn't eradicate the guy in front too - but photoshop can't work miracles - not even when the nation's future king is involved.

6 comments Labels: Media, Racism

The scene: Torregaveta, west of Naples.

The event: two Roma girls aged 12 and 13 drown in the sea.

Their bodies are laid out on the beach and covered with towels, waiting for the authorities to pick up their bodies.

gypsy[i-gypsy]
Meanwhile: just feet away Italians soak up the sun. Have lunch. Chit chat among themselves. Make relaxed phone calls.

The bodies of those children so much beach trash.

Elsewhere: the police carry out dawn raids, mobs of civilians throw petrol bombs into a Roma encampment.

beach[i-beach]
Sorry, today I'm lost for words.

4 comments Labels: Europe, Fascists, Racism

I've a number of requests for you that you might like to take part in.

catbus[i-catbus]Firstly, I'm compiling the short list for 2008's top twenty green blogs that will be announced in the beginning of August. This follows on from the same awards in 2006 and 2007 where, using an extremely thorough and pseudo scientific method, we get a snapshot of what is crackling on the Green Blogosphere.

In order to avoid having to do a fine tooth comb of all 400 or so of the UK's Green Blogs (that's green in general by the way, not just Green Party) last year I introduced a shortlisting process which included all those who'd come in the top twenty previously, and those submitted by readers (and myself) and it's these blogs who are submitted to the very intensive marking process.

If you know of a green blog that did not come in the top twenty in 2006 or 2007 please leave a comment in the box and I'll add it / them to the short list. This will be particularly useful this year because there are so many new blogs out there. Thanks.

On a connected theme. Iain Dale's new political blogging book (which the top twenty green blogs will be a part of) has a broader top 100 of the UK's political blogs. He is now appealing for people to vote for their favourites. Read the details here. Deadline August 15th. I already have in mind some of the blogs I'll be voting for.

coffee+chill[i-coffee+chill]Next: The carnival of socialism is getting back on the road and the excellent Cruella will be hosting the next edition this Friday (25th). The edition after will be hosted by the top notch Socialist Party blogger A Very Public Sociologist (please ignore the exceptionally ugly header font to his blog - I think it's a socialist rejection of aestheticism or something).

If you spot some righteous left wing blogging in the next five days be sure to let Cruella know, and if you're keen on hosting the carnival skip on over to the C of S site and leave a comment in the appropriate receptacle.

Lastly, I'll be hosting an online Green Leadership Hustings not long after close of nominations (31st July). I'd like you to submit the questions for the candidates.

Please send them directly to me at my jimjepps email account at hotmail.com. I'll be putting ten of those questions to the candidates (I'll be weeding out for double entries, rudeness and idiocy - sorry) as is standard practice I will be welcoming controversial or difficult questions. This offer is, of course, open to both party and non-party members. That's right - this will be the only opportunity for non-party members to quiz the leadership contenders, how Web 2.0

There should be something for everyone there I reckon. Please feel to spread the word on any, all or none of these. Thanks.

ps don't forget to vote in my boycott poll (right). My ethics are in your hands.

2 comments Labels: Misc

Peg Putt, the leader of the Tazmanian Greens is quitting Parliament after fifteen years, six of which were as party leader. Nick McKim, who is to replace her as leader, had this to say;

peg+putt[i-peg+putt]"Ms Putt’s political career is full of significant achievements, including being the longest serving female leader of a political party in Tasmania’s history, playing a key role in gun law reform, and the apology and compensation for the stolen generation, protection for threatened species in Tasmania, tabling the Bill which ended corporal punishment in Tasmania’s state schools, bringing about the Gilewicz Commission of Inquiry, establishing Tasmania as a GE-free state, and campaigning to save Tasmania’s high conservation value forests.

“Peg did a fantastic job of holding the ground for the Greens after the numbers in Tasmania’s Parliament were cut, and it is due to her strength and courage that the Greens are once again a recognised Party in Tasmania’s Parliament.”

The Tazmanian Greens have four seats out of twenty five with 16% of the total vote.

0 comments Labels: Australia, Green Party

I went to the Iraq Occupation Focus day school today Justice for Iraq. I really like the IOF day schools because they tend to have a more intellectually honest approach to discussion. It seems to me that it's healthy not to tie ideas too tightly to action (shock) because you end up with the cart leading the horse. I tend to think of IOF as a bit of a think tank for the anti-war movement although I've absolutely no idea if that's anything like the way they see themselves.

peace+soldier[i-peace+soldier]One of the things that distinguishes them is a concentration on the actual news coming out of Iraq rather than selecting those bits that might suit a preconceived agenda. It's not as if you have to apply any spin to see what a catastrophic idea the war has been from start to will-it-ever finish. So I'd recommend signing up for their ultra-regular newsletter which always contains far too much info to easily digest in one sitting.

Sami Ramadani spoke first, and as ever he was brutally honest. Firstly, in recent months Iraq has been getting far less attention in the press and the simply fact is this is because less US and UK troops are coming home in body bags. As one speaker mentioned later on, we may see a shift in emphasis away from killings and torture perpetrated by occupying forces, with a weak client state looking on, and move far more towards an authoritarian Iraqi state. In that circumstance the emphasis will need to shift from the withdrawal of troops towards the human rights of Iraqis.

Ramadani pointed out, rather carefully, that the actions of "Al Quaida like groups" in Iraq have been extremely useful for the occupation. It allows them to paint Al Quaida as the resistance, essentially gives whole areas to the occupation, stokes fear in the populace and brings the occupations natural enemies together under the auspices of fighting Al Quaida.

stupid-2[i-stupid-2]What's clear is that US forces are not going anywhere anytime soon and with every passing day Iraq sinks deeper into the quagmire of internal division and impoverishment.

A number of other speakers talked about the handing over of Iraq's economic resources, and the incompetent mismanagement of the post-invasion economy. In fact there was a lot of detail on this in one of the sessions, which I felt was extremely useful in outlining how malfunctioning and weak Iraq's economy had become - and how this was the inevitable outcome, if not intention, of the US policy. But if the US came to liberate Iraq why is it dictating economic policy? Why does the Iraq Development fund sit in the Federal Bank of New York?

We don't want to reflect this colonial attitude in our movement. Discussions on whether water boarding is torture, or when the right time to withdraw troops are not questions we have a right to ask - we shouldn't even be attempting to tell Iraqis what to do or give ourselves options about how long we stay or how we treat prisoners we had no right to take. We're not a charitable movement looking after the needy Iraqis - but a solidarity movement working with and for our mutual benefit. Nor do we pretend we have a blue print for a utopian Iraq - just one free from imperialist occupation.

That means not just the troops but their corporate friends too. These outside companies have been intensifying the conflict, both through the social impact of their behaviour but also very directly through their use of mercenaries who seems to be unaccountable to anyone. The perfect neo-con state in fact.

I'll let John Hillary of War on Want sum up the tasks of the anti-war movement for me. Partly because he was very clear - but also partly he chose not to pull his punches.

• A long term occupation means a long term resistance, here.
• We have to support the Iraqi resistance (discuss).
  
• We have to provide solidarity with those, such as Iraqi trade unions, who are working to build an alternative civil society.
• We need to oppose the privatisation of the occupation.
• We need justice for the victims.
• We need to rebuild Iraq, on Iraqi terms, not ours.
• We need to end the occupation itself.

All in all it was a good and useful day - going through my notes I realise I've written far more than I should sensibly put into a blog post but it was good to hear thoughtful disagreement, without the need to prove how important an organisation is, or why everything needs to be geared towards the next mobilisation. There was discussion of specific actions but we weren't hit over the head with them, and I find that very refreshing.

4 comments Labels: Middle East, War

I've never made a secret of the fact that I rather admire George Galloway, despite the fact that on certain issues we radically disagree - that's fine. I like differences, even irritating ones.

So it was with great pleasure that I saw Galloway getting back to his old form and giving the shortest of shrifts to one of Her Majesty's Opposition. The Telegraph's Jonathan Isaby tells that;

"News of an unseemly spat between Respect MP, George Galloway, and Greg Hands, the Tory MP for Hammersmith and Fulham. Galloway stands accused of failing to follow parliamentary protocol for not informing Hands that he was speaking at the recent Islam Expo at Olympia in his constituency.

"Hands wrote to the Bethnal Green and Bow MP seeking an explanation for the apparent "breach of the conventions and courtesies of the House". Galloway's reply was cavalier to say the least.

"Dear Mr. Hands (whoever you are)," it began. "I speak in one part or another of Britain almost every day of the week. I have neither the time nor the inclination to check whose constituency I'm speaking in."

"I do hope you are not claiming any parliamentary allowances for writing such a preposterous letter," he concluded.

Nice.

Who is this bloke? Does he think every time an MP speaks at a rally in Traffalgar Square they write to Tory MP Mark Field? I should cocoa. Galloway was speaking at a national event - keep your beak out Mr Hands!

All this wig wearing, gentlemen's club, proceduralist rubbish should be scrapped asap. Hands is acting like he owns his constituency and Galloway is just the guy to pull him up short. God knows what Hands was thinking of trying to have a pop in the first place.

7 comments Labels: Democracy

You don't often hear much from Nigeria in the main stream news do you? It's probably a very insignificant African country of little importance in the global economy which ticks along quietly not being a bother to anybody. Yes?

yar-adua[i-yar-adua]Well, get ready for the media to get suddenly interested with more and more reports fed to them by the UK government of murder and mayhem from the region. Which in no way would be connected to the fact that Gordon Brown is planning on sending a bunch of military advisors to help train the Nigerian army how to put down those who oppose them. Which is in no way connected to British economic interests in the country. Which in no way is connected to the fact that Nigeria is the eighth biggest producer of oil in the world.

President Yar'Adua (pictured), who came to power in a rigged and completely meaningless vote last year, is visiting the UK at the moment to sort out the deal literally guaranteeing the supply of oil through murder.

Oil is 40% of Nigeria's GDP and I think it would be fair to say that the government is not particularly interested in running the country at all - only in keeping the supply of oil, and their backhanders, flowing. Which is precisely why those displaced from their homes or disenfranchised by a violent, murderous corrupt regime have felt they have no other option that to take up arms, to resist violently, and even to resort to kidnappings (effecting even Everton).

There is no democratic route to justice in Nigeria and the world does not give a toss what happens to some black peasant living in the back of beyond. If a family gets shot because they refuse to be displced by an oil company - well you wont hear it reported in the UK press, especially becuase we're talking about UK oil companies here.

Ironically it is this very policy of prioritising the oil over all other things that has created such a backlash - if there were some schools, civil rights and a bit of job creation there'd actually be less disruption to the flow - but that would not suit the personal interests of those most tied to the oil industry.

Brown should be intervening - but to arrest those UK citizens who have been complicit in the social and ecological disasters - not to send in troops to prop up a violent and anti-democratic regime. Still the British government tries to send those fleeing the political violence and poverty back. Poverty so bad that recently 12 unemployed people were killed in a stampede over the announcement of jobs. "After struggling through school, you have unemployment staring you in the face, and when you finally think succour has come to provide you with employment, the recruitment leads you to your grave,"

nigeria_01[i-nigeria_01]Of course there are voices from Nigeria getting through that are asking why the UK should be supporting a corrupt government that acts against the people in the interests of the oil corporations. It's also claimed that this will lead to more violence rather than less and increase the number of attacks - now where would we have seen that before?

The government is one big militia. Better armed, more ruthless, more organised than those resistance groups that have sprung up across the Niger Delta. But whilst those groups arose as a reaction to displacement, repression and poverty the government is the author of those woes.

Oil has only brought misery to the vast majority of the people of Nigeria. The jobs it brings go to foreign nationals, the wealth it produces goes into the pockets of the Western and Nigerian elites, it arms the people's oppressors, displaces the poor from their homes, distorts the economy and national life until those who are not part of the oil better not be in its way. And due to the strategic importance of oil if it ever looks like they might be able to throw off their government the West will step in to shore up their corrupt business partners.

Even Gordon Brown will have heard of the name Ken Saro Wiwa, surely. Well through these actions Brown is complicit in the fact that Ken Saro Wiwa will not be alone in his shallow grave. I've given up hope of an ethical foreign policy by now, I'm sure we all have, but that's no reason to turn a blind eye to our government's bloody support for yet another oil dictatorship.

Craig Murray on the same story.
Militia pledges to call off cease fire due to Brown's offer of military support.

2 comments Labels: Africa, War

Adrian Ramsay has launched his bid to become the very first deputy leader of the Green Party. Adrian is a bit of a local legend round these parts and is in a good position to oust Charles Clarke at the next General Election so I thought I'd take a quick look at his rather impressive campaign website, just as I did for Caroline's and just as I'll do for any other leader or deputy leadership campaign materials that come my way.

tesco_web[i-tesco_web]In keeping with Adrian's formidable reputation for organisational tasks the very first thing you see when you visit the site is the box to sign up as a supporter (unlike Caroline's where you have to dig around to get there). Other additional features include rss feeds (essential for people like me), videos (that I'm less keen on) and a prominent call for standing orders to the Green Party.

In other words it's focused on the task in hand and presented in a slick professional manner.

Possibly one area where Caroline's site has the edge is the clarity and simplicity of her approach. It's very easy to see at a glance what her politics and vision are - with Adrian's campaign site, because it has that much more packed into it, it takes slightly more work to get to the overall political vision.

So the top stories at the time of writing are a discussion on the Severn Barrage, support for the public sector strikes and a statement from his campaign manager, the most excellent Peter Cranie. An excellent balance, and people should not take it for granted that someone going for a leadership position would give such prominent the support for strike action, but that balance will undoubtedly change as new news stories crop up, so it serves more as a news feed and snap shot than political programme.

However, I really do recommend that people dig that little further because the areas that Adrian chooses to highlight are really quite revealing. I think it's fair to précis them like this (in this order);

• the party is part of a movement
• social justice and affordability
• climate change
• anti-privatisation
• fair trade
• animals and wildlife

council_housing_web[i-council_housing_web]A clearly outward looking, left, internationalist, and green agenda. One that starts with the claim that Green Party "co-operation with campaign groups and trade unions is crucial". Clearly not just a machine politician then.

His launch press release states that "the Green Party combines a clear vision of environmental sustainability with a clear commitment to social justice at home and abroad - such as our opposition to the privatisation of council housing and our proposals for making Fair Trade the norm.

"We need long-term, positive solutions to the rising cost of living that reduce our society's dependence on oil. This must include free insulation schemes to tackle fuel poverty, more reliable and cheaper public transport and a low-carbon, localised economy."

For my part I think this will hit all the right buttons with Green Party members and, to be honest, me. I'll be interested to see who, if anyone, will be standing against him to be able to compare and contrast what alternative positive contribution they can make to the direction of the party. That would be a very useful discussion indeed.

7 comments Labels: Green Party, Leadership

I've only just noticed this editorial from the leftwing newspaper Socialist Worker (I've selected the pic).

Don’t join New Labour’s sinking ship

The waves are lapping ever higher around Gordon Brown – yet many figures on the left have reacted by becoming ever more strident in demanding we cling to New Labour’s wreckage.

link[i-link]This week Jon Cruddas MP wrote that voters in Brighton Pavilion should back the Labour candidate rather than the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas in order to “see off the Tories”.

Yet Lucas can win the seat and has an excellent record in opposing war, racism and neoliberalism. Cruddas also voted for 42 days’ detention without charge – presumably because he felt that to do otherwise would imperil Brown’s premiership.

A more unlikely recruit to the “Rally Round Labour” camp is George Galloway MP who used his column in the Daily Record to declare that “Glasgow East should send [Labour’s] Margaret Curran to Westminster on 24 July”.

The urgent priority for the left is to build resistance to Brown’s pay cuts and to create an alternative to his free market agenda that threatens the homes and livelihoods of millions. Doing that requires breaking from the “rally round Labour at all costs” approach.

Thanks to the comrades for that. The well placed words about Caroline are appreciated, although it's a shame that the editorial is simultaneously nice about one part of the left in order to bash other left wingers.

7 comments Labels: Green Party, Labour, The Left

Today was the deadline for Tory MPs to hand in their expenses to be published for the great unwashed to paw over and gawk at. It's a new regime of openness, but not everyone has handed in their homework, seven Tory MPs in all are AWOL.

• Sir Paul Beresford doesn't claim expenses, which makes him a kind of cheap, economy brand MP. Doesn't actually *do* anything - but doesn't actively rip off the public either.
  
  
• Unlike Ann and Nicholas Winterton who are corrupt as fuck so decided they'd rather not hand in the accounts.
  
  
• Bill Cash just has not had time. He really, really will get round to it you know.
  
  
• Anthony Steen - who? Doesn't like sneaks.
  
  
• Christopher Chope - who? Nick-named "Chopper" Chope for his pioneering work in privatising council housing. Given the OBE for services rendered. His wikipedia entry contains this bizarre sentance "A devout Christian, he has expressed views favouring capital punishment, although only in extreme circumstances."
  
  
• John Stanley - who? PPS to Thatcher pre-79.
  
  

If you want to check out the new Tory transparency you can do so here.

I had a flick through but I think it would take someone who knew the Tories rather better than I do to find any scandals here, I'm sure Labour's hacks are beavering away on this as we speak - although I do find it uncomfortable when I see MPs giving their wives pay outs of between thirty and forty thousand pounds a year.

Let's turn MPs into the line-managers of their offices, but have expenses and salaries paid for by the Commons itself. We could then stop all this nonsense where people get confused by how many stamps an MP is using and probably improve the employment rights of the staff at the same time.

3 comments Labels: Democracy, Tories

Today hundreds of thousands of workers, mainly from public sector union UNISON, went on strike for a decent living wage. The reports I've seen make it clear that this action has been very well supported. I'd expect tomorrow's support, on the second day of the two day strike, to be just as strong. The solidarity reaches all the way up to Prince Charles, sort of.

strike[i-strike]Estimates range from between 300,000 and 600,000 workers out on strike (pic shows rally in Sheffield, taken from Indymedia) which is pretty formidable and whilst, we're not talking about prolonged industrial action, a two day strike of this size is a very good thing indeed.

The ultra-amiable Ben Duncan was at the picket line in Brighton, where he is one of the Green Parliamentary candidates, and said;

"Gordon Brown says we all have to tighten our belts in the face of tough economic times – of rising food, housing and transport costs. He says spending money ensuring wages for some of the lowest-paid keep up with inflation will push that inflation still higher. What nonsense.

The reality is the current economic downturn has been caused by an out-of-control banking industry and an over dependence on ever-depleting oil reserves. So, what does the Gov’t do? It spends £50 billion bailing out the banks, and billions more fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to secure oil reserves. Meanwhile, it says we cant afford to take the economic risk of paying public sector workers the same as we did just a few years ago...

And here in Brighton and Hove it’s particularly tough: we live in what has become known as the low-wage capital of the South-East but face some of the highest food and housing costs in the country.

When the Green Party, a few months back, proposed the council pay a living wage of £7 an hour to its lowest paid staff, we learned that this council, in this city, in 2008, pays less than that to 1,150 people. Mostly on casual contracts, we’re talking about cleaners, the lowest grades of library and teaching assistants and stewards at the Brighton Centre, to name just a few. Meanwhile its highest paid managers are taking home six figure salaries."

One of the Green MEPs, Jean Lambert who has been consistently good on trade union issues, supported the strike with these words;

"New research has found that public sector wages are around 30% lower than in the private sector and that is not beneficial for workers or for public services. As the cost of living increases public sector workers should not be expected to suffer disproportionately."

In my neck of the woods, Cambridge, our first Green Councillor Margaret Wright is one of only two councillors supporting the action. The CEN reports "Cllr Margaret Wright and Cllr John Hipkin, who form the Green and Independent Group on the city council, have backed the strike action. Cllr Wright said calls for a 6 per cent pay rise were reasonable." Not one of the Labour Group's eleven councillors willing to support the union that funds their party then.

Meanwhile UNISON activist Cath Elliott on Comment is Free put it like this;

"Take it or leave it" seems to be the attitude coming from the other side of the non-negotiating table. Well thanks, Gordon and co but we're not prepared to do either of those: if you've got anything more productive you'd like to add, come and find us on the picket lines.

Excellent.

1 comments Labels: Trade Union

Bringing the police to justice is a rare and beautiful thing. Bringing them to justice in a state that is moving ever closer to fascism is still rarer, but it's happened. There is good news from Italy - and you haven't heard me say that for a while.

mark+covell[i-mark+covell]Mark Covell (right) was one of a number of activists who travelled to Genoa to protest against the G8 summit in 2001. Like many there he was an unashamed anti-capitalist. He wanted to see a world run for the millions not the millionaires - to coin a phrase. In Genoa there were literally hundreds of thousands ready to fight for a better world.

Mark was acting as an online sub-editor and editor of a printed bulletin for Indymedia working full time from their site in the city, sending out coverage of the protests and especially the police actions. Their response was absolutely brutal and was targeted across the movement, physically assaulting pacifists and anarchists alike (and everyone in between). Hundreds were arrested and/or beaten as they attempted to breach the "red zone" that surrounded the summit. Carlo Guilani was shot dead.

When the police raided the school Indymedia were set up in there's little doubt that they hoped to stop their role in telling the world what was happening in Genoa. They didn't want video footage of beatings and brutality being broadcast across the world. Whilst a continuation of their violence during the day this was also a no holds barred attack on the media.

The riot police set on Mark outside the building. At the time he described how a line of fifty police entering the building each gave him a kick in turn as they passed. When they were finished "He was left with eight broken ribs, a shredded lung, a broken hand, 16 missing teeth and was in a coma for two days." He's lucky to be alive let alone seeing some justice done in court.

Forty five policemen were on trial for their parts in the torture and assault on this independent journalist. Berlusconi had hoped to suspend the case (as well as the case against him) in order to focus on "more serious crimes" but he wasn't able to get his way and fifteen of those on trial have been convicted of far from trivial offences.

"The stiffest sentence was handed to camp commander Antonio Gugliotta who was given five years, while the others received between five to 28 months." The judge had hoped to give stiffer sentences but lamented the fact that there were no laws against torture in Italy.

My best wishes go to Mark on this happy occasion, and whilst seeing some of those responsible being held to account may not be everything we could hope for, this kind of ruling comes along so rarely it can't be seen as anything but a stunning victory.

3 comments Labels: Alternatives, Europe, Law and order

Well, leadership nominations have not closed as yet and you still have time to put yourself forward for this or any other national executive position, offer ends 31st July. Personally I'd like to see every position contested, not just the "sexy" top jobs of leader and deputy leader as it presents a unique opportunity to shape the direction of the party.

caroline_voting[i-caroline_voting]As Matt Sellwood mentioned a couple of weeks ago on this very blog; "An internal election has the potential to generate much-needed debate about what the Green Party is about, where we are going, what our priorities should be, and what form of organisation is best able to deliver them. It is difficult to have that debate if positions are uncontested."

So it's good to see people taking the contest seriously and Caroline Lucas has launched her campaign to become leader of the party today, which includes this very well designed website. I thought I'd take a look at what she has to say as an indicator of the kind of leader Caroline aspires to be.

She begins by defining the Party as "a radical voice in British politics" which is building into an "effective and credible force". Her constant references to a "leadership team" as opposed to either a soppy "all of us together" or an unrealistic "what I'll do for you" approach I find particularly appealing because once again it seems to fuse pragmatism with an optimistic, positive outlook.

The political content is laid out in a very well defined and succinct fashion. The party should be about climate change and social justice. She states that "we face a country more unequal than it has been for decades. Only the Green Party has coherent alternatives to government policies that are privatising public services, increasing inequalities, and leading to greater violence and exclusion."

In terms of a strategic vision it seems to me that the over arching theme is one where we should become far more electorally ambitious, not just in those key target areas but across the country in local and European elections. If I can be frank for a moment though, the stated aim that "at the next General Election, I would love the Party to be in a position to offer everyone in the country the opportunity to vote Green" seems not just far fetched but cuts against what otherwise is a very strong and realistic approach.

That's not to say that the principle of throwing the net wide whilst focusing on key seats is wrong, but to pour money and resources into standing in areas where we have neither a functioning party nor any reason to think the area will be fertile ground for us seems like an unnecessary and unwanted distraction. Oh well, we disagree on this point. The key point where we do agree is that the Green Party is "already putting in place our most professional campaigns ever" and ones that have a good chance of success.


link[i-link]I particularly liked the get involved section of the campaign site, with its focus on signing local members up as national members, and ensuring that supporters are paid up members by July 24th so they can play a full part in this important political decision making process.

For internal democracy to be meaningful it has to be both inclusive and vibrant in a very concrete way - I've no doubt some will be sniffy about the idea of any campaigning at all but without reaching out and spreading the discussion executive posts would inevitably go to those best placed to gain profile in the party, or factions within it, rather than allowing the members as whole to make genuinely informed decisions.

A healthy and active internal democracy is also something that attracts those who have not yet joined the party rather than repels them. Personally I don't give any credit to the idea that internal democracy is something that should held in secret - because this inevitably ends up shielding the members themselves from discussion and does nothing to increase transparency and accountability of the executive to the members and of the party to the public.

From my perspective members need to base their decisions in this election on a number of factors;

• whether they trust the candidate will do a good job. I think the vast majority of members will agree Caroline will certainly do that.
  
  
• whether the Candidate is strategically placed in a way that, by electing them as leader, they advance the party as a whole. In terms of giving Brighton Pavilion an edge at the general election this is clearly an important element in Caroline's favour.
  
  
• whether Caroline's politics and tactical vision encapsulate the views of Party members. I think this would be the area that anyone seeking to take Caroline on would have to target if they were to stand any chance of making a credible challenge. For me the message of a radical vision combined with no nonsense professionalism is extremely attractive, but I'm certain there are other points, both political and strategic, that can be made that members will have sympathy with, we'll have to wait and see if anyone chooses to make those arguments.
  

Caroline would be, and is, an excellent leader for the Greens but I'm waiting until all the names are in the hat and the arguments have been made before I make my choice of who to support. I'm looking forward to seeing what others can come up with as Caroline has clearly set the bar extremely high.

18 comments Labels: Green Party, Leadership

A guest post from the excellent anarcho-archaeologist Moll of Hanging Around on the Wrong Side of the World who's fresh from writing an excellent post on racism in Bolivia. Here she discusses the interaction between popular culture, scientific disciplines and politics.

indiana-jones[i-indiana-jones]Let me start by saying that I absolutely loved the new Indiana Jones movie. I saw it with a motley bunch of archaeology friends, and we all agreed it was one of the most entertaining movies we had seen in a long time. Behind the fun, however, the archaeological community tends to get its knickers in a bit of a twist whenever a movie like this is made.

The election of Harrison Ford to the board of the Archaeological Institute of America has got the anthropologist bloggers buzzing, while the usual nay-sayers across the academic community are bitching once again about the inappropriate portrayal of the discipline and the terrible damage its going to do to the public's already misguided perception of the past. The only archaeologist who regularly and passionately comes out in defence of poor Indie and his pop-culture friends is the wonderful Cornelius Holtorf, who argues that in an era when science and scientists are generally losing their sense of authority in the public image, archaeologists should embrace the fact that they and their discipline have such consistently enthusiastic press.

The thing that is perhaps most upsetting to the archaeologists about the latest movie, though, is not that it gives an unrealistic impression of the romantic appeal and athletic ability of most ageing archaeology professors, but the alien factor. I'd read in an interview a few weeks before that Spielburg had purposely modelled the series on the pulp fiction of the era they were set in. In this context, the aliens and commies plot line makes a lot of sense, echoing as it does the comic books of the time. But while I agree with Cornelius Holtorf that Indie is not going to bring about the end of common sense as we know it (whatever that may be), the revival of an interest in the aliens and archaeology is one that is disconcerting for more important reasons than some hallowed concept of academic integrity.

Unlike my archaeologist colleagues I'm not too concerned about the inaccurate way archaeology and archaeologists are portrayed in popular culture. I'm not going to be proposing that anyone who wants to watch an episode of Time Team should be forced to read 20 years of back issues of the journal American Antiquity first (I can barely make it through one issue myself, and I'm meant to be studying this stuff). But the consistent belief that aliens are responsible for the civilisations of the past is grounded in a concept of history and of difference that I find particularly disturbing.

We are, apparently, living in a post-modern world. Gone are the old certainties of Modernity - apparently we no longer believe in either Progress, Grand Narratives or Tradition. Or do we? Modernity was meant to be all about the belief that "Civilisation" was inexorably marching on, and that all of history could be seen as a continual, unbroken line from A to B.

aztec+heads[i-aztec+heads]In such a view human society has always been in a state of progress - we started as barely sociable animals and we are always advancing towards something better. Better, of course, equalled 'like us', and all those other people that the various waves of crusading, conquering and colonising Europeans encountered were cast as relics of a soon to be gone primitive past - and therefore easily killed, enslaved and otherwise treated as less than fully human. In such a view the past is always inferior to the present, just as anything different to the European is always automatically inferior.

The only problem is, that there is plenty of evidence that plenty of places and times in the past weren't that unsophisticated after all. This is where all the talk of mysteries comes in, when people who can't believe that anyone who lived at any other point in time before them (or, god forbid, in a part of the world other than Europe) were capable of doing something as simple as putting one stone on top of another and building a pyramid. And hence we get the idea of aliens.

The only explanation for the societies of the past is that life forms even more advanced than us modern Europeans built them instead. As unlikely as it is that aliens exist, its considered more improbably that people who were some colour other than white were able to live complex, intelligent and organised lives. "Primitive people being able to think rationally and organise themselves into a society? Nonsense! If there weren't any Europeans around to teach 'em how to live properly, it must have been aliens."

The Italian social historian Alessandro Portelli writes that the things that people believe about the past are as much social facts as the actual 'facts' of what happened.

history_matters[i-history_matters]In one of his most detailed and poignant examples he seeks to understand why the slaughter of 335 prisoners by the Nazis in Rome during the war has been consistently blamed on the failure of a group of resistance fighters to come forward after killing 13 German soldiers in an ambush. Although there is abundant historical evidence that there was nothing the resistance fighters could have done to prevent the mass murder, the 'social fact' is that generations of Italians remember the events differently, and act accordingly. Subsequent political movements from the moment of the event up to the present day have been shaped by the way people 'remember' this single act.

Portelli's example demonstrates something we should always bare in mind when thinking about the past: that the 'facts' of the past become secondary to the social facts. In other words, what happens in the past is not as important as what people think happened, and how this shapes what they do and think next.

Its a small step from thinking ancient non-Europeans were not capable of complex society and rational thought, to thinking that contemporary non-Europeans aren't capable of it either. Such thinking holds as its core the idea that anything different from 'us', must be inferior. What happened in the past - whether the pyramids were built by aliens or by people - is one matter, but the far more important issue is why people believe one or the other in the present, and the impact this has on the way they think about the different capabilities of contemporary people.

So although I loved the movie, there is reason to be worry if Indie brings about another alien invasion of the past.

1 comments Labels: Culture, Guest Post, History, Racism, Thinking aloud

A few things I've spotted over the last week. I've tried to avoid the barrage of coverage on Betancourt - don't want to overdo it on this admittedly very welcome story, although I should say that one of the first people she thanked upon her release was Hugo Chavez.

alan+garcia[i-alan+garcia]Strike waves in Honduras, Peru, and Mexico. But Peru's President thinks it's all down to the outside agitators who are trying to bring him down. Others are asking whether Peru's economic model working for the poor?

Things seem to be getting very hot in Ecuador's citizen's revolution as the state seizes TV stations and over 200 companies. The FT reports on some of the economic problems the country is facing, including the resignation of the finance minister. The government is threatening/promising to go further. "The mass confiscation was cheered by most Ecuadoreans, many of whom demand jail sentences to bank owners", bloody communists.

The Huffington Post raises questions about the US relationship with Mexico's torturers.

Whilst it seems Uribe has kissed and made up with Chavez, despite Ecuador's continued reluctance. Meanwhile the Farc have denounced its own members who betrayed them to allow the hostages to go free. The View from Steeltown asks whether we are seeing the end of Farc. More from Latin America News Review on Colombia.

V from S also reports that things seem to look hopeful for the electoral left in El Salvador.

Now, did John McCain literally put the boot into a leading Sandinista in the eighties? A spokesperson says it doesn't matter "Decades have passed since then and he wanted to make the point that over the years he has seen Sen. McCain mature into an individual who is not only spirited and tenacious but also thoughtful and levelheaded," by not thumping people whilst on diplomatic missions anymore.

link[i-link]In Chile they're going nuclear in more ways than one.

Firstly there's the power stations, but then there's the protests against market reforms in education. 150 were arrested as teachers and students demonstrated against the new education bill (right). This comes over concerns that Bachelet, the country's first woman President (and who has argued that Ingrid Betancourt should be given the Nobel Peace Prize), may lose next year's election to right wing billionaire, Sebastian Pinera, which would be the first time the "right" had been in power in Chile for 18 years.

Whilst Chavez is busy buying Russian tanks the New Statesman argues that his time could be running out if he can't get the programme back on the road. But others say the Venezuelan economy is going from strength to strength, which is crucial in my view.

However, it's probably not helpful when nearly 300 opposition candidates for the upcoming local elections are barred from standing. I don't think the left would tolerate this behaviour if it was directed at them, but it seems to be remaining silent when its conducted by one of their own. Annoying.

I'm not the greatest fan of President Lula of Brazil but on his recent trip to Vietnam he did say that "The Vietnamese can be proud of being the people that defeated the French and the Americans in the same century. That says a lot about who the Vietnamese people are and how resilient they are." Credit where it's due I say.

Meanwhile the US has resumed military operations in the region with the redeployment of the IV Fleet. So maybe Lula will have a chance to emulate his Vietnamese heroes sooner than he thought. Will this help repair the diplomatic rift between the US and Bolivia? No. It wont.

che-jail[i-che-jail]Of course there's the news that Bolivia has rediscovered Che Guevara's final diaries, which unsurprisingly has done nothing to prevent the UK tightening immigration from "risky" countries including Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Trinidad and Tobago.

Looking to Cuba it appears that Raul Castro is preparing the people for economic problems ahead which may "slow reform", plans include raising retirement age by five years "from 60 to 65 and for women from 55 to 60". They've already doubled rice production after concerns about rising price of food.

It's a shame to see state sponsored homophobia re-emerge in Cuba as Permanent Revolution informs us that Havana's first ever gay pride march has been banned. There's also an interesting piece in the Washington Post about how the mob won and lost Cuba.

Anyway, I'm sure that's enough reading to be getting on with. Ta ta.

0 comments Labels: Latin America

Graham Linehan has an extra-ordinary pedigree as far as producing exceptional TV comedy. He's been part of creating Father Ted, Black Books and the IT Crowd so when The Stage reports that he thinks TV comedies now-a-days rely on "swearing and rude content to get cheap laughs" we are obliged to sit up and take note.

father+ted+underwear[i-father+ted+underwear]Although he loses points by talking about pushing envelopes (envelopes are posted, not pushed) I'll take his word for it because as far as I can see he's devoted his career to raising the standard of the slop we're given. I don't watch enough TV to make an informed comment about his substantive points but it should be pointed out that sometimes puerile swearing is funny - which is why the character Father Jack (he of the "fekk off" catch phrase) is so well loved. But of course it has to be done well and in moderation to hold the attention.

Linehan claims that this point was taken out of context and was, in fact, part of far more nuanced analysis of the state of TV comedy. He has interesting things to say about the way TV has responded to the new media for instance.

Some channels have taken to popping up messages that are not part of the show, or designed just to tell you what channel you've watching, which is not only pointless but distracting. He approvingly quotes one writer who says it's “completely disrespectful to the creative team that mounted the show... If we wanted Kathy Griffin to suddenly appear in the corner of the screen we’d put it in the script. If we thought the viewer was so stupid he wouldn’t know he was watching FRASIER just by seeing Frasier on the screen, we wouldn’t be writing Cezanne jokes for the show.”

Linehan goes on to make the insightful point that "one thing that always confuses me is this desire to make television look more like the more annoying side of the internet (shock value, grim porn and pop-ups) when it seems obvious that it could do far better positioning itself as a (cultured, non-intrusive, valuable) alternative to the internet. It’s like the cinema industry in the fifties decided the best way to compete with television was to make the screen smaller and break up the film with countless advertising breaks."

Less people watch TV now than they have for decades, and whilst part of this is due to the fact the medium has competition now due to advances in technology, a key factor has to be that 90% of the output is utter shite. Surely.

father+ted+racist[i-father+ted+racist]There's this extraordinary divide between the "super-brands" that the companies seem to actually care about (Dr Who, The Sopranos, Life on Mars) and the rest which is just churned out as cheaply and quickly as possible. On that kind of production line it would be understandable if some fell back on shock value and swearing. whilst the big names found it difficult to meet the expectations that had been raised unfeasibly high.

It seems to me that Father Ted benefited from *not* receiving the kind of attention that is heaped upon those in the golden circle these days.

It may also influence, as perhaps Linehan is implying, the kind of output that is produced. How well would a comedy of subtle glances and gentle awkward moments sit with stupendous fanfares and a desire to produce a competitive brand? The temptation to add an explosion or facile expletive may be a by-product of the marketing culture where the "product" itself is an extension of its own publicity.

Which is why it was such a brave and correct decision for Ricky Gervais to shut down The Office after just two short series. A decision that in itself shows there is still hope for those who'd prefer higher quality over ninety nine channels of junk any day of the week.

0 comments Labels: Culture, Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 comments Labels: Democracy, Green Party, Suggest a topic, Tories

Newsnight a couple of nights ago had a focus on African corruption and whilst I wasn't able to watch the entire report what I did see made me squirm a little. We had a series of (African) people who essentially seemed to be calling for the end of aid until the continent's corruption problem was sorted out.

food+fight[i-food+fight]I think this is rather a problematic view. Partly because it amounts to punishing the poor twice over, but also because it seems to ignore the very basic fact that Western companies, and to a lesser extent Western governments, actually contribute to this corruption and actively collude in it. With the current disparity in wealth the West is able to bend these governments to its avaricious will.

Prem Sikka points to the recent transparency international report (pdf), which demonstrates serious concerns over the willingness of Western governments to deal with corporations. "Behind the facade of mission and corporate social responsibility statements, companies and their executives seem only too willing to indulge in bribery, corruption and a variety of antisocial activities that affect the life chances of millions of citizens. The government's inertia provides positive encouragement."

Arms and oil companies are, of course, the worst offenders but it would be wrong for us to think that this is the only area where it is us that is the corrupt and anti-democratic partner. As Sikka says "Bribery and corruption destroy social fabric. Yet governments and regulators continue to see bribery and corruption through the prism of corporate interests and do little to inconvenience them."

You only have to look at this story from Paraguay where a US anti-corruption NGO has been found to be riddled with bribery, giving contracts to its "friends" and other assorted dodgy practices. The West assumes it has a moral superiority over Third World countries - but in a great number of cases it is the cause (direct or indirect) of the lack of democracy, and that's without bothering with some sort of unconvincing history lesson. We have the wealth to look respectable, but it does necessarily not make it so.

Having said that my usual note of caution is this, just because Western companies and governments are complicit in acts of corruption, anti-democratic activities and greed it does not mean that these vices are not to be found among the native population of the third world countries who, to state a rather banal truth, are just like us - it just means both sides are complicit. Dictators should face accountability for their crimes, as should their Western backers.

MannSimon[i-MannSimon]The racism seems quite tangible when we look at the case of Simon Mann. The British Press appears to be quite sad that this leader of an armed gang of mercenaries who were preparing to violently overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea (supposedly with the nod from the US and other governments) has been given a hefty sentence.

The theme appears to be that these Africans don't understand you can't lock up a *white* man in some dirty prison over run with *black* men, and more than one report has suggested he could serve his time here. Why? If he was good enough to try to overthrow their government he can face their justice can't he? It was a risk he willingly took in the hope of robbing the country three ways from Sunday.

I mean, they might put their dark hands on him. An Englishman and an officer! Hilariously one report outlined his service in the SAS and then asked so how could he have become a violent, anti-democracy mercenary... well, possibly the two things aren't so different? Maybe one thing led to another - who do you think supplies the world with arms and mercenaries? Peace loving Norway?

If this had been Africans plotting to overthrow the Welsh Assembly these same papers would be baying for the blood of those who have got off Scot free, and possibly demanding the bombing their country of origin. Let's just be glad that Equatorial Guinea does not have the access to weapons that some of our more reliable customers for weapons do.

When one of "ours" tries to overthrow a government and help himself to the oil wealth all we hear is complaints that they've been nasty to him, but anyone with dark skin only has to mention that the system of government here is not so great and it's cue for much arm flapping and freakish shrieking. Let's end the double standards.

If we're serious about building democracy in developing nations then we have to root out the rot at home. We help bring Mark Thatcher to justice, we end the complicity between arms companies and the government and we bring the corporate criminals to book. We can't continue treating serious corruption as some sort of African boys own adventure - where the lives don't matter and the wealth is just ours for the taking.

2 comments Labels: Africa, Development

Yep, after just over two years I've finally reached the point where I'm going to the polls. In possibly a first of its kind I'm putting my life in the hands of the great public of the world.

boycott[i-boycott]I'm committing myself to boycotting two items from the following list, which was partially determined by readers of the Daily (Maybe). I'm sorry I'm only committing to two but because this is really real I'd be lying to you if I said I was going to do the lot, and I don't want to lie.

There's also the option of not boycotting anything (presumably on the basis that they don't work) in which, if that's the choice you make, I will vow not to partake in consumer boycotts of any kind. At all.

You'll notice some fresh additions like Kettle Crisps and Religion and I'm hoping that readers will make the case for what they think I should boycott as the month progresses. Also feel free to highlight links that will help people make their choice, or even write your own posts on how you think people should vote - I'll link to them if I know about them.

• Nestle
• Alcohol
• Religion
  
• Meat
• Fish
  
• Flights
• Kettle Crisps
  
• Bacardi
• Israeli goods
• Coke
• McDonalds
  
• Do not boycott anything
  

These are the options - you can vote for as many or as few of them as you like in the right hand column and the two options with the most votes will struck from my life forever. Please use your power responsibly. Polls close in one month.

9 comments Labels: Boycotts

I'm not into talking up the economic downturn, as they say the left has predicted accurately eight of the last three recessions, but even I'm picking up some of the signs. Two pictures taken today.

DSC00272[i-DSC00272]


You only have to look at the empty shop fronts on Mill Road and around the Grafton Centre to see that something is happening. What are they being replaced by? A half full Grand Arcade and Tesco. Is this the future of the economy?

2 comments Labels: Cambridge, Economics