Happy New Year - no comments

This'll be my post before the New Year, so best wishes to all.

2007 starts with a bang, with possibly the biggest darts match of the decade on New Year's Day. PDC legend and 13-time World Champion, Phil Taylor, meets 4-times BDO champion Raymond van Barneveld, in their first World Championship final, both players having dispatched their semi-final opponents 6-0. Should be a great match.

Tory hypocrisy - no comments

Stephen Pollard covers shadow Tory defence minister, Gerald Howarth's comments on reports that the RAF 'will take advice from Stonewall on how to make itself more attractive to homosexual and bisexual men and women, and is aiming to spend tens of thousands of pounds on advertising in the "pink" media':

[...] the shadow Tory defence minister with responsibility for the RAF, said that he thought that "taxpayers would be aghast" that public money was being used to support a pressure group. "This is an extraordinary exercise in political correctness," he said. "The idea that the homosexual community is not already aware of the opportunities in the Armed Forces is ridiculous, and to go out and specifically recruit on the grounds of a person's sexuality seems to defeat the whole purpose of anti-discrimination legislation."

True, the words themselves aren't necessarily bigoted, but the tactic is classic Tory dog-whistle politics: the coded signal has been sent out to 'nasty' voters that 'nice' politics a la Cameron is just for the networks and the newspapers that the 'nice' voters consult, and that the illiberal obsessions of the Tory right will not be left unmet.

Tom Freeman has more hypocrisy here:

Cameron also accuses Labour of "incompetence" and "untrustworthiness" and generating "disgust". He warns that in 2007, "Labour’s dark side" will come to the fore, in the shape of Gordon Brown.

He adds, speaking through a mouthful of unmelting butter: "we need to prepare ourselves for an onslaught of negative campaigning".

That Cameron has the gall to utter "we must show that unlike Labour we will be a party that is for working people, not rich and powerful vested interests", suggests this media monster believes he really can say just about anything and get away with it. Hopefully the electorate has had enough of media-driven politics, one-man revolutions, and Boy Kings, to inflict five years of that upon itself.

Saddam and capital punishment - 5 comments

As consistent opponents of capital punishment I hope we can join in:

• Condemning the execution of Saddam Hussein.
• Applauding his (flawed, perhaps, but essentially fair) trial, and conviction.
• Agreeing that even the tiny proportion of his crimes brought before the court entitled him to the most severe punishment possible under the law.
• Peacefully (and consistently) lobbying all governments that practice capital punishment, in order to end the practice.

I believe these are the necessary priorities for someone, today, concerned with the eradication of capital punishment. Hardly controversial, surely.

I'm sure some will hijack this debate in order to push their own politics (for more, see here) - references to "predictability", "convenient outcomes", "loss of moral high ground", "democracy failing first test", etc. will abound, but, frankly, I haven't got time to spend trawling through the morally vacuous responses to find the few principled ones. Nor should we be distracted from the long, tedious work of persuasion, by those for whom "Iraq" is just a stage for their own exciting political theatre.

Carbon Trading - no comments

This post was partly inspired by Polly's piece (via S&M) on carbon allowances/trading, as well as the one on Labour's front page (now disappeared, though this covers an earlier draft of the Government's plans). I did start it about a fortnight ago, which is why everyone's moved on to other topics. Anyway, key quote (from Polly's):

Miliband's electric radicalism comes in his plan for personal carbon allowances. Here is where social justice meets green politics for the first time. Give every citizen the same quota of energy and let them buy and sell it on the open market. The half of the population who don't fly will make money from selling their quota to the half who do. Drive a gas-guzzling 4x4 and you will have to buy a quota from the third of the population with no access to a car. Who could complain about such transparent fairness?

I can't deny that the liberal side of me would be interested by the establishment of a free market in carbon units. Labour supporters are both accustomed, and quite correct, to attend to those who lose from market outcomes, when so often the result of systematic injustice, but what would 'exploitation' look like in a market like this - with equal allocations of resources for all, and that leaves people free to buy/sell in a rational manner? Having provided equality of opportunity, there must be less of a moral imperative to compensate those who made themselves worse off by buying or selling unwisely, or by missing opportunities that were open to all. If that sounds too cold, compare that scenario with one of a society that seeks to promote equality of opportunity (rather than outcome) without a prior equalisation of assets/resources (as radical as that would be), even though every aspect of it is imbued with the results of past inequalities. If ours is to be an "opportunity society", then surely it must be judged on the basis of the results of - and our attitudes to the results of - just such a carbon market.

* * *

How could such a market work, and what might be the consequences?

I'm assuming, for this, that the Government sets a "fixed exchange rate" between a "carbon unit", which I'll call CU, and, say, a kg of produced CO2; that it establishes the market by calculating the total CU entitlement from the year's emissions target, then distributes those CUs equally among all CU account holders (all of us), either in one go, or - ideally - monthly portions. Presumably all (carbon-using) energy bills would require a payment in CUs, in addition to the monetary cost.

The next assumption that the carbon market has sufficient public support/Governmental commitment that people can assume it's unlikely to disappear any time soon (what would be the point, otherwise?) I'm further assuming that, because the Government's overall aim is to reduce carbon emissions (albeit in a roundabout way), annual/monthly CU distributions will fall over time. Both premises introduce an element of risk - in the sense that people who continue to produce/contribute to high emissions may find it harder and more expensive over time to obtain the CUs they need to fuel their lifestyle, as the supply of CUs decreases. One more assumption: that CUs "live" longer than a year (or a month, as discussed), and therefore that a CU issued in Year 1 can be 'sold' in Years 2 or 3, for example. If so, an opportunity arises within the CU market for those on low incomes to use their relative numerical superiority and (given equal allocations) high proportion of CU ownership, to produce a redistribution of income. Fund managers, working on behalf of the poor, could sell CU options to affluent, high-emission individuals. By purchasing options - the right to buy, months or years in the future, CUs from the poor at a particular price, decided today - the high-emission rich would be able to reduce the risk that they are unable to afford to maintain existing fuel usage in the future, at the cost of paying the poor an 'option premium'. This would redistribute a small amount of income (minus a fund-management fee) to the poor very quickly. The downside, however, is that the bulk of the redistribution will be moved into the future, for that is when the options expire and the high-emission rich finally buy their CUs.

'Congestion charging' and tax changes could happily coexist with the CU market provided the aim was to ensure that what motorists paid reflected the full environmental/social cost of their motoring. Road tolls and fixed-rate congestion charges would go further to reduce vehicle usage and emissions, and would almost certainly have more of an effect on emissions than the CU market. However, the burden would hit the poor hardest. Even with CUs offered equally to all, individuals would still hold different levels of capital, with differing capacities to liquidate that capital: for example, compare a rich individual's ability to sell a high-spec, gas-guzzling vehicle, with a poor person's inability to replace an inefficient heating system with a more modern one that would allow them to make better use of their CUs. While the affluent would be able to switch to public transport out of choice, perhaps claiming to have done so 'for environmental reasons', the poor would be more likely to do so out of compulsion, because they are in much less of a position to replace a polluting lifestyle with a less polluting one. If the Government did go further down the road of legislation in order to make the greatest impact on emissions, it would only be fair if the poor were compensated. It would be fraudulent - not to mention counterproductive - to claim to be establishing a "free" market, where economic decisions can legitimately attributed to a free choice, and not to do so.

For more on this, here's an article from the US Congressional Budget Office on "Who Gains and Who Pays Under Carbon-Allowance Trading?".

As an aside, it would be nice in theory to have a system in place whereby CUs could be traded for free. The Government could fill this role, allowing the poor to sell CUs without transaction costs. As to whether the Government could legitimately involve itself in the option trading mentioned above, that seems unlikely. Well, let's face it, the whole carbon allowance scheme sounds pretty unlikely, but if it did exist, I don't see any reason why the poor couldn't be organised, and the above trading scheme operated for nothing - by trade unionists? - or by a firm that charged an overall fee, rather than many individual ones.

Back - no comments

I'm back - hope you all had great Christmases.

I can't say I thought all that much about posting over the festive period, but this was all moot, given my discovery that it's no longer possible to use Blogger.com using Mac OS 9.

The only 300-plus page doorstop I received contains a Far Side cartoon on each page. However, I now have this wonderful thing to listen to.

Happy Hols - 1 comment

I'm off to winter lodgings in the New Forest, so Happy Christmas and best wishes to all readers, and to all Labour bloggers!

I will be checking in from time to time, and have a rather hard-boiled post about carbon trading that I might just get finished, but other than that, see you all after Christmas.

Christmas Double Issue / 500 - 5 comments

Looks like this year'll be the first in ten (or so) that I haven't bought the "Festive" edition of the New Statesman to tide me over those awkward gaps in the Yuletide period between getting up and it being seemly to grab a sherry (well, this). I can't say I've enjoyed the last couple of seasonal ones, and spent a fair while last year irritating my sister by reading extracts with rising incredulity, from the many (frankly) bourgeois, mithering articles; lists of reasons why certain media types will never forgive Tony Blair; and wish-lists for the World in 2007. I suppose I'll miss the crossword, and conservative philosopher (and Uni-era hate-figure)-turned-wine buff Roger Scruton's column on - don't tell me - the aesthetics of wine-drinking, and how the Ancient Greeks solved the old "glass v. bucket-with-a-straw" dilemma.

I've already got The Economist's double issue (whose back pages don't feature word games, or the NS's obligatory Philosophy Football ads, but a table indicating that Sierra Leone still leads the world in child mortality, and that Zimbabwe's nearly doubled between 1990 and 2005), but perhaps I could manage two, this year. So, what should I go for? (My first) Prospect at a hefty £4.50? Or should I just save my money and see what the blogosphere turns up? Or just buy balloons?

Incidentally, this is my 500th post here. Was it good for you? That works out at a rather poor 0.74 posts/day, though the new Blogger tells me I have no fewer than 104 unpublished drafts.

Irish Labour Party - 1 comment

The Irish Labour Party has relaunched its web-site, and there's an interesting list of changes and enhancements at Graham Ó Maonaigh's blog.

A couple of things jumped out at me:

• Events Diary: well, we had a go, and it didn't quite take off straightaway. Changes are being suggested on the forum, but what our Irish friends are looking into is some kind of integration with upcoming.org. I think we could do that, too; so maybe interested individuals could have a think how we could best do that, and share their thoughts in the comments, or (ideally) on the forum.
• They have thousands of images in their Flickr area. Our group, with its 14 members, has a mere 34 images. Given that our own Labour Party lacks this facility, Bloggers4Labour and its bloggers ought to be filling the gap. If you're a Councillor or an activist, perhaps you have photos of campaigns, meetings, or evidence of local issues that you can bring to a wider audience? Anything politically-themed is of interest. Here's our original post on the subject.
  

Christmas theme - 1 comment

Perhaps there are more important things going on in the world, but you can be cheered by the reappearance of snowballs (on reflection, snowflakes might have made more sense...) as the Bloggers4Labour background, indicating that Christmas/your preferred alternative Winter festival is just around the corner.

John McDonnell and Arbitrary Taxation - 7 comments

An honest, democratic tax system - to me - is one where the tax rules are set out in advance, and Governments do all they can to raise money based upon the strict application of those rules. If revenues are substantially different from what the Government expected, that suggests either a failure of collection - for which Governments must be held accountable - or that the taxation has prompted a change in economic behaviour (this is, itself, interesting, but a topic for another day). The results should be factored into the plans for the next Budget. Trying to meet a shortfall by taxing something after the event - that is to say, taxing something that an individual didn't expect to be taxed, or at a rate they couldn't have foreseen - represents an abuse of Government power, if you want my view, and not something you expect in a democracy, whether the taxes come from people who can't afford it, or who probably can. "The rule of law", I believe, is the term.

This is just what John McDonnell is proposing here, with an arbitrary tax on Christmas bonuses. Yes, clearly in some sectors of the economy they're huge, but that's no justification for what borders on theft by the State. There's no good reason that I can see why Christmas bonuses, per se, ought to be taxed, and at least in the banking sector, they're also unpredictable, making them not a source one can depend upon for funding public spending, or reducing taxes elsewhere. Now, I certainly don't think such a windfall would do much harm; the money even be put to good use, but that doesn't justify the policy, and the proceeds from any windfall should not be wasted, or simply raise expectations that would have to be met out of general taxation when the apparent bounty doesn't materialise (insert - 19/12) in subsequent years.

John invites us to contrast news of these huge bonuses with reports of new efforts to coax the long-term unemployed back into the jobs market. By contrast, he means, of course, to imply a relationship without needing to - or being able to - state what that relationship is. The implication is, presumably, that those bonuses - shared out - would solve the problem of long-term unemployment, saving us all that silly debate about skills, apathy, migration, competition, benefit traps, and marginal tax rates; also that one reason for long-term unemployment is just that the right 5-6 figure salary just didn't come along for those people. Perhaps the issue is one of education (though this doesn't seem to hold many traders back), or application, or interest, or not living near London, or not wanting to work 60-hour weeks, or preferring a stress-reduced life to the salary benefits. There are plenty of reasons why that career might not work out for people, but it's hardly the point: we need to be trying to equip people for some kind of plausible career, because I certainly don't think the kindest or most liberal approach is to allow someone to degenerate, wasting the skills they have. Everyone should care about that, it just so happens that Governments care more, it being other people's taxes.

John's quite right to talk about the need to tackle inequality, but in terms of ideas, he evidently has nothing new to offer, just a pat, simplistic approach that is designed to invigorate his supporters, woo potential supporters, and avoid making any difficult choices. Now, I did hear once that he supported the Citizen's Income, though I haven't find any evidence yet. Is this true? And if it is, why doesn't he talk about that, and help get it on the agenda, rather than all this "fantasy politics" stuff?

Labour Councillor smeared by Lib Dem activist shocker - 3 comments

Political Penguin reports that "Liberal Democrat Campaigner" Colin Ross has done a hatchet job on Councillor Bob Piper in response to his publication of the "blacked-up" Cameron image that caused so much controversy earlier in the week.

Colin is neither shy to smear Bob with the charge of racism, nor to make the completely unjustifiable accusation that a "whole load of negative comments about BME people" was also featured (I assume Colin is clear in his mind of the need neither to generalise about, nor to 'spin', any particular racial/ethnic group). He goes further:

Thankfully he [Bob] has taken it down now, he has also stated that he will be taking a break from blogging. However it's not enough he should stand down from public office and Labour should have the guts to throw him out of the party. Believe me if this was a Liberal Democrat I would be urging that course of action.

Yeah, of course you would. Mercifully, though:

• No reasonable person could possibly take Colin's charge seriously, either from knowing Bob, having read his other posts, from mulling over the words "Lib Dem activist", or after discovering the nature of Colin's political activities. I assume his website is strictly for fellow activists.
  
• Most readers of a liberal (of all things) persuasion should object to unelected individuals - in principle, and especially when they busily mobilise public campaigns - pressurising elected members - individually, or through their party - for what amounts to no more than offending some people's sensibilities. It should be obvious to a genuine liberal how valuable such "offence" can be across society, and that elected members must accept a priori that they will take the consequences of their actions at the ballot box.
  
• Colin's conscience - or sense of shame - may eventually surface, prompting him to append an apology to his mean-spirited article, before genuine public opinion compels him to publicly backtrack. Hopefully this will happen before the "Stop Press" leaflets hit the streets. He might also like to investigate this while he's at it.

Polls: Labour Blogging in 2007 - no comments

I've added another couple of Elections to the member's home page, which anyone can participate in. If you joined during the Blog Awards, you'll use that same login/password again.

The first covers Political Preferences, and currently features a single poll that lets you allocate 100 votes among different political parties.

The second covers Labour Blogging in 2007, and features polls on attitudes to Labour blogging/bloggers, usage of this site, and finally, a vote on some suggested improvements to the site.

I may add new polls to those two sections in due course. If you have ideas, let me know.

Some day I'll make it possible for all Labour supporters - perhaps even all users - to set up their own polls in the same way.

So they got to you, too - no comments

Perhaps it was too easy a target, but I had been about to post something about the "Diana whitewash", when I spotted a comment on Tom H's blog too hilarious to miss. In response to a post about "showbiz" jurors serving on televised juries, adjudging fictional crimes, an anonymous individual held forth as follows:

Oh yeah, like this is the most important story today. How convenient that you blog about this stupid issue when you know full well the Stevens whitewash, sorry 'report' comes out today, and maintains the fiction that Diana died in an accident. No wonder Nick Palmer wants you to stand for Parliament - you're nothing more than an establishment lacky (sic).

A rival report carried out just this afternoon will serve to demonstrate public support for his apparently crackpot claims:

[...] Whilst 31% put Diana's death down to not wearing a seatbelt, and being driven at high speeds by a drunken, drugged driver; a whopping 40% felt the scenarios of a British secret agent loosening crucial nuts within the car's braking system, or operating an experimental "sonic weapon" from a safe distance, were more plausible explanation for the high-speed, drink and drug-fuelled crash.

[...] No fewer than half of these respondents pointed out that the Duke of Edinburgh "doesn't like foreigners, does he?", and recalled something someone told them once about the Duke of Windsor liking Hitler.

Only 9% of Daily Express readers polled felt they had a duty to refund British and French taxpayers for wasting police time. Meanwhile strong interest was expressed from some quarters for Express Newspapers to laminate the front cover of future editions...

Sources have so far failed to deny suggestions that Diana has been attempting to manipulate public opinion from Heaven, channelling stories and photographs to journalists through a medium employed by Express Newspapers, in a bid to secure her reputation on Earth.

Politics for Grown-ups - 2 comments

There hasn't been a great deal of coverage across the Labour blogosphere of the controversial "blacked-up" Cameron spoof, involving Councillor Bob, Ministry of Truth, and certain (mostly opportunistic Conservative) bloggers.

That's a shame, because even if Cameron is apparently implicated in scandals over "cash-for-access", and evading penalty fares on the Underground, I don't know if that tells us much we didn't know about the trappings of power (or the loving attention he's been receiving in the MSM). The row over this spoof, though, is much more interesting.

The original post at MoT, containing the so-called offending image and "Yo Niggahs!" caption (now since moved to another post, and also featured at Bob's), attracted - in blog terms - a storm of protest from bloggers, who no doubt expected some kind of Labour scalp. This was followed in turn by coverage at the BBC, in the local press, the Daily Mail, and (apparently) Sky News. Not at all suspicious, that. What are we to make of the spoof being: "Offensive", "Nasty", "Distasteful", and "Overstepping the mark"?

What all of this boils down to is other people trying to force their own particular moral codes upon you, as a blogger. That isn't a healthy place to be. If the accusers happen to be people from your own peer group, blogging community, or social circle, you might be wise to reflect on your actions. You may be looking at an orchestrated campaign of political bullying - the use of hostile comments, media intrusion, stress, and inconvenience, to force a concession or an apology, when no law has been broken. Even if you accept that offence was genuinely taken (which I'm not sure I do accept, in this particular case) - you may find yourself up against people and groups whose offence-threshold is so low that you cannot debate with them on equal terms, and your right to free speech has been nullified.

The giving and taking of offence is not a zero-sum game: once "taken" by a politically-/racially-/religiously-/nationalistically-motivated individual, it can be appropriated on behalf of an entire community, nation, or religion. It can also be projected by a self-appointed group of citizens on behalf of another group. That can be justified when there is real public sympathy for genuinely victimised groups without a strong public voice, but the interest can be self-serving too. The Ministry of Truth's follow-up is essential reading here.

As much as anything, though, offence is not an argument. The right approach to being accused of causing offence is surely to invite the accuser to discuss the basis upon which they claim to have been offended, and how that can be resolved. They might have a point - but if no answer is forthcoming, one should proceed with a level of energy that is in direct proportion to the level of power and influence of the individual making the original suggestion. Offence without argument is just humbug, and those attempting to make political capital - or apply political pressure - sanctimonious prigs. God help Cameron if that's the state of the blogosphere he (heaven forfend) - someday - presides over.

The irony is that however visually silly the original spoof image, and how clumsily rendered (not that I could do any better), the debate that grew up once people's knees had jerked a few times - and once those who can only work that way had vacated the area - was all the more interesting and constructive. Politics is for grown-ups, however old they are.

Finally: perhaps the most inane contribution to the debate I've encountered has been this comment at Tim Worstall's (ninth one down):

It's taken more than 40 years to take the word n***** out of circulation. So for these two clowns to use it to make a political point against a shambolic Tory party that has one foot in the political grave is shameful.

Of course one sort of racism has been enshrined in - and manifested by - the saying of that word, but to conflate that word and racism is ridiculous. People who obsess over mere words are not people that the genuinely downtrodden deserve on their case: a particular word falling out of favour may make public discourse sound nicer, but it's no substitute for action, and language develops so quickly that new words always appear to take the place of others.

Racism is manifested by crimes and injustices, through callousness and contempt, and through exploitation and ignorance. It's solved when people learn to (or rather, remember how to) treat others as equals, and it's helped by punishing those who abuse; rejecting those who seek to reinforce these artificial barriers to free human interaction; those who try to take down one, only to replace it with another; as well as those who try to bully long-standing anti-racists for the crime of not playing by their rules.

Update (13/12): As it's my habit to take about 2 days to write each post, I've been overtaken by events already. Bob has said he's to take a break from blogging:

I have decided to take a break from blogging. The intention of this site in the first place, influenced by Tom Watson and Bloggerheads, was to entertain, inform, and yes, provoke a bit too. I’ve had some good banter with folks over the last couple of years, some of it on both sides getting a bit tetchy and even abusive from time to time.

I never took it personally, and if others did, perhaps I’m now in a better position to understand that... but throughout it all, I quite enjoyed it… until this last week. Some people decided I had gone too far and said so. We had some banter, but then it got totally out of control and I have had a weekend of the most vile abuse, partially provoked by a Conservative who accused me of being sympathetic to the BNP on his blog site.

For someone of my political views, that and the abuse that followed, much of it from far right organisations, has been unacceptable, so, for the time being at least… count me out of your games.

That's very disappointing news, but hopefully Bob will be able to make a comeback in the New Year.

Update 2 (13/12): Another good post about the Tory MP trying to profit from this...
Update 3 (13/12): More offence? The original seemed quite mild to me.

Pinochet cheats justice - no comments

Pinochet is dead, via Phil. Luke puts it well:

Part of me wants to celebrate, part of me to regret that he did not live long enough to be brought to justice by the courts in Chile.

... and this from To the Point:

The only thing to lament here is that he has joined the ranks of twentieth century dictators that have died a peaceful death in their own beds, --privilege that he denied to the thousands of Chileans he had murdered

Reminded me of this piece about the death of the Chilean socialist singer/songwriter, Victor Jara.

Blog Awards: results - 5 comments

Voting is over, and the results are in. The "Voters" column indicates how many different people gave that blog some votes; "Total Votes" the total number given by those people.

The winners are:

The Daily - Best Blog and Best Newcomer
NewerLabour - Best Young Blogger
"Harry Perkins" - Top Blogging Personality
Antonia Bance - Best Blog of an Elected Representative
Never Trust a Hippy - Best Community Activism
Dave's Part - Best non-Labour Blog
Iain Dale - Wooden Spoon Award
us! - Best Use of Technology

NOTA "won" Best Trade Union Blog, though Jon's Union Blog was the highest-scoring blog.

What did you think about the use of "none of the above", and there being ten votes each?

NB. If you fancy running your own poll - with your own categories, questions, and maximum number of votes - using the voting system you've just used yourself and already grown to love, let me know.

Blog Awards: voting closes soon - no comments

Voting closes at midnight. One of the (relatively) long-standing leaders has slipped behind in the last couple of hours, so there's still plenty of time to influence the results (by voting). Quite a few voters haven't used their full allocation of 100 votes, for instance.

Meanwhile, the ten, 9-foot high Carraran marble blocks have been delivered, and the sculptor's pacing up and down among the Gauloises stubs, waiting for my signal to immortalise each winning blog/blogger in metamorphic rock. The original plan: to etch the winners' names onto the surface of the Moon in letters large enough to be visible from Earth, using a Diamonds Are Forever-style laser satellite, was deemed a "non-starter" by certain killjoys.

Trident thoughts - 1 comment

Excuse the rhetoric, but one of the luxuries of inhabiting a country which has not had to fight for its very survival within the living memory of the under-60s who dominate the electorate (assuming that a strike from the Eastern Bloc would probably have been the result of "provocation", and that the Cold War just ended as if through the actions of some unseen, unknown force) is that threats to national security, which have motivated political leaders - the good, the bad, and the self-seeking - for just about all but the last 25 years of our history, can be wished-away. After all, nobody's seriously threatening us, are they? Wouldn't it be irrational for a rogue state to hold us to nuclear blackmail, and couldn't we just talk to them (see, TB, that's where you've been going wrong) and persuade them that whatever we did wrong, we won't do it again?

* * *

This Trident discussion isn't made any simpler to nail down by the fact that a fair proportion are opposed to nuclear power altogether, and given that one can't have a military programme without a civilian one (either one at home, or a friendly one abroad), I think it's fair to put the anti-nuclear contingent entirely on the anti-Trident-renewal side. Why would one do that? Well, because the issue at hand is presumably that of the need to maintain a military system that has similar (or at least, sufficient, however that is determined) deterrence capability as the existing one. Opposing nuclear armament, or indeed any significant defence spending, suggests that one has opted out of contributing to that particular decision. It may not be the most important decision; it may even be one where we never see the benefits (I take it there won't be many of us left to see the decision shown to have been a mistake), but simply deciding that the situation cannot ever apply, and that the most extreme threat to a nation's security will arise, looks like an unnecessary hostage to fortune.

It's easy to believe - for recent generations - that wars just end, when the free peoples of one participant eventually persuade their Government to give peace a chance, but WWII demonstrated that the Japanese regime was willing to put its civilians and armed forces through extraordinary levels of punishment to keep the conventional war going and preserve the nationalistic myths that kept it in power. Michael Meacher - no, really - opines about nuclear weapons on his blog thusly: "None of our wars was ever won by them and none of our enemies was ever defeated by them." That Michael has an unconventional take on "our war" and "our enemies" doesn't surprise me, but turning a blind eye to the need for terrible decisions to be taken on a huge scale, and the vast numbers of extra casualties that would have resulted if the Japanese theatre of WWII hadn't been forcibly closed, entirely through the use of - and capacity to use - nuclear weapons, is really not very helpful. Is it so far-fetched to imagine that a similarly fanatical regime could hold sway in the future, prepared to grind up conventional forces by the million? It's not my intention to smear all opponents of Trident-renewal (or equivalent-replacement) as being as batty as Meacher, just to say that that kind of disinformation needs to be combated before we can sensibly proceed.

Yes, it's a position that can be abused, but if the Government doesn't provide for the security of the UK - given that UK cities would be attacked irrespective of the nationalities or politics of the individuals unlucky enough to reside in them at the time - then it's reneging on its primary duty to its citizens, whatever some faction of the citizenry would rather that money be spent on.

Of course when I say "that money", I mean the people's own money, money that governments are implicitly contracted to spend in a way that aligns with the public's wishes. Does it, however, follow that government spending is divisible in such a way that the sums of money - £20bn+ - being referred to as the cost of updating and improving Trident could really be shifted, lock stock and barrel, elsewhere?

Judging by the comments left at Compass's Trident-discussion page, many have alternatives in mind. I wouldn't say the ideas were vague, fantastical, and uncosted (one commenter - a Dr., no less - argues that "a multiplicity of other investments in genuine quality of life improvements for the global North & South" would be a better use of the money, and who am I to disagree?) The problem is that everyone has their own wish-list but doesn't recognise that - at the very least - any Trident revenue released would have to be spread thinly across all these competing interests. Yes, I'd like to "eradicate curable disease in the developing world and end extreme islamic terrorism", but they can best be (and are) being tackled in other ways; linking them to Trident is simply a red herring.

Secondly, each believes that that public money will be used in the most effective imaginable way - that a one-off contribution of a few £bn to the NHS budget will have an impact out of all proportion to the existing £96bn for 2006-07 alone.

Thirdly, few know what proportion of the, say, £20bn can be spent: only on Trident; or Trident-like things; on submarines; on nuclear technology and nuclear experts; on defence systems; on products used in, by, or for Trident; and so on. No, I certainly wouldn't be happy to hear that a large sum of public money has effectively been ring-fenced by being tied to a particular technology or product, thus reducing the taxpayer's ability to exert control, but that's how complex systems work in practice. A cynic would prepare the public for the news that, of the £20bn headline cost, only £10bn might be recoverable, and that it would disappear into the public purse, spread so thinly over the life of the project as to be never seen again.

* * *

So who decides what defensive systems the UK deploys: het-up supporters of the current party in Government? Or how about the electorate as a whole? How can we run a referendum on a topic that - apart from some defence workers - doesn't impact on anyone individually; where the product we're paying for doesn't materialise for perhaps another 20 years; which we can neither see, touch, or use ourselves even when it's ready; whose security benefits will accrue to millions of people as yet unborn, and not to millions alive today who won't be in 20 years; a system which future generations might not be able to resurrect in time if we didn't set the ball rolling now?

There are obvious democratic reasons why we should consult the electorate, and economic mechanisms through which the public could theoretically express their view to governments in a way that could answer the above concerns - see here and here. To be honest, I'm too interested in how that could be done to want to dwell on the unlikelihood that these concerns could seriously be considered, through a referendum that culminated in a: "well, you've heard all the arguments on the news and in the 'papers, now, it's time for a Yes or a No". We've seen that it's very difficult for democracies to pursue wars (abroad, at least; presumably public opinion would look rather different in the event of a nuclear attack) in the full glare of publicity, with the understandable aversion of the public to casualties, the fact that the military is greatly constrained in what forces it can deploy, however right or wrong the goal might be. Nonetheless, whatever problems Labour Parties have had with nuclear issues in the past, allowing the Trident decision to be presented as a fait accompli, and/or a decision that only the Prime Minister (alone?) could take, is not really what we expect in a pluralist society - even if the decision is almost certainly the most sensible one.

* * *

There's a lot of talk about whether Britain's deterrent is to be "independent". I'm not at all sure if I would want it to be independent, even if in the process I give up the ability to make quips about "America's coat-tails" and the chance to join forces with the little-England tendency. If we can't rely upon the United Nations, a body like NATO might be the organisation that has the consistency of purpose to take decisions on the use of the nuclear weapons by its member states, enhancing the credibility of retaliation with the danger of automaticity, enhancing collective security, and preventing individual members from pursuing their own ambitions. One of the charges against the Trident upgrade is that "it will never be used" and therefore is a waste of money. Is that thought based upon the likelihood of nuclear attack - probably - or the likelihood of our leaders declining to respond in kind if attacked? I don't really want to go deep into MAD territory, only to say that - though it's perhaps less relevant whether the decision is actually taken for real - the suspicion among our attackers that it might not not only guarantees that our deterrent is a complete and utter waste of money, but also fails to deter attacks, both on us and our allies. Like it or not, it has to be clear that our deterrent is up-to-date, ready for action, and - whether under British or NATO control - will be used. If we're not serious on these fronts, then the critics who talk about "white elephants" and "tickets to the top table" might not be as far wrong as they look - and sound.

* * *

Leaving aside the issue of whether the post-WWII nuclear threat is greater than the pre-WWII threat of wars involving massive conventional forces, what can be done to minimise that nuclear threat? Time, before I forget, to introduce the excellent debate hosted at Prospect, which touches on the issue of what impact British disarmament might have. Anyway, I think there's another inconsistency in the approach of the unilateralists. If they're right in saying that Britain's deterrent represents its ticket to the "top table", and that Britain really is an American stooge, what influence could Britain logically have when it disables its deterrent and calls upon others to do so? I suggest the answer would be very little at all. Why shoot themselves in the foot? Isn't it just as likely that our smaller, or less powerful allies might feel the need to protect themselves with their own deterrents, or try to squeeze under the American nuclear umbrella? It's a thought. I'd prefer to reduce nuclear tensions through: collective security, addressing the threat of 'rogue' regime and the causes of rogue regimes, the inspection of all nuclear sites, and the prevention of the trafficking of nuclear materials.

* * *

Well, that's it (yawn). Obviously I would say all that, and perhaps it was so predictable that people up and down the country are, as we speak, opening sealed envelopes entitled "B4L's Trident post" to reveal the above thoughts, and collecting fivers from the awe-struck throng. Nonetheless, it's my small contribution to the debate. Was it a little one-sided? Hmm, a little, perhaps, but I tried to address a range of opinion, and I think someone who only read one article on the subject (not a good idea, to be sure) wouldn't have made a bad choice. What sort of impact are you expecting? Well, judging by the length I doubt most will read it through, and it probably only shows up "below the fold" on tiny screens anyway. Maybe it'll affirm some people in their views, while others will follow a link or two and mull a few thoughts over whilst kicking a ball around the flat. Maybe it'll annoy a few people. I quite like the idea of annoying a few people once in a while.

Blog Awards: state of play - no comments

Just a quick update if you haven't logged-in recently.

The Daily continues to lead as Best Newcomer, and has surged into a 30 vote lead over Ministry of Truth as Best Blog. Newer Labour continues to dominate Best Young Blogger, as does Antonia in Best Blog of an Elected Representative, and Iain Dale who is a good few lengths up on Melanie Phillips in the race for the Wooden Spoon.

Things are tighter in Top Blogging Personality, with "Harry Perkins" (a fictional character - hmm) leading Kerron by 7, Never Trust a Hippy ahead in Best Community Activism by 9, and Stumbling & Mumbling up by 7 in Best non-Labour Blog.

Rather disappointingly, "None of the above" leads the battle for Best Trade Union Blog.

Polls close at 00:00 on Saturday morning.

Blog Awards: Nominees - 3 comments

Sorry, really should have posted this a couple of days ago. Each site listed below has been nominated for one or more categories in our Blog Awards. I should also add that everyone has received at least one vote.

Absolutely anyone can vote: you just need to go here, and set up a login. Takes all of two minutes.

Antonia Bance, Blogging4Merton, Bob from Brockley, Bob Piper, British Bull$h!t Foundation, British Politics, Britney British, The Carpetbaggers, Could have been a contender, A Councillor Writes, The Daily, Dave's Part, David Miliband MP, Eric Lee, Fisking Central, Freemania, Guido, Hamer Shawcross, Harry Perkins (Reclaim Labour), Iain Dale, Idiots4Labour, Jo Salmon, Jon's Union Blog, Kerron Cross, Labour Online, LabourHome, Leighton Andrews AM, let's be sensible, Live from the Socialist Fortress, Luke Akehurst, Mat T, Melanie Phillips, Ministry of Truth, Miranda Grell, Musings of an Owl, Neil Harding (Brighton Regency Labour Supporter), Never Trust a Hippy, NewerLabour, Nick Griffin, Norman Geras, Oliver Kamm, Paul Burgin, Phil Dilks, Progressive Dilemmas, Rhod on Public Affairs, Rhondda Today, Rhondda TV, Snowflake5, Someday I Will Treat You Good, Stuart's Soapbox, Stumbling & Mumbling, Tha London Diaries, Tom Watson MP, Union Futures, Yours For A Labour Government

Now, how about some politics?

Blog Awards: voting open - 11 comments

The polls are now open, and available to all site users. Just login, or register if you don't yet have a username.

Why all this? Well, (a) having a login is useful in itself: it provides you with the Dead Socialist Watch script, the ability to add our bloggers directory to your site, and so on. Also, (b) I respect the results of polls much more when I know they're not completely open to manipulation. Well, yes, you have to trust me, but you can also be sure that I won't let the results be contaminated by repeat-voting, and by sock puppetry.

Anyway, log in, and the green box will direct you to the election page.

There are ten categories, and you have ten votes to allocate in each (100 in all). You can give all ten votes to one candidate, spread them any way you like, and even vote "None of the above" if you would have preferred an alternative candidate. However, once you've voted, you cannot reallocate your votes.

I believe the voting system is stable, though it's perhaps more clunky to use than it should be - and will be in a couple of days when I've had more time to polish. That said, I've started allocating my votes, and it works like a charm.

Please let me know if you have comments, especially if "something funny happens".

Nominations close at midnight - 8 comments

Just a reminder that nominations for the B4L Blog Awards close at midnight.

I'm busily getting the polling system set up - hence the lack of posts.

Final point on the nominations: the Wooden Spoon competition doesn't seem to me to be quite working out. Perhaps I should have explained better: I'm looking for examples of really lousy blogging: attacks on other bloggers, the posting of bogus or rabble-rousing stories, or relentlessly mean-spirited editorials. But you can also mention other sites that are blog-unfriendly, or organisations that are. Please, when nominating such a site, briefly give your reasons.

I know it's a bit late, but I may have to drop the category if we can't get some better nominations.

Final point: apart from the Wooden Spoon and Best Non-Labour Blog categories, all sites submitted must be currently listed at Bloggers4Labour. If you've spotted a new pro-Labour blog, great, but nominating it for an award is not the best way to notify me (this is), as I'll be forced to remove it from the list.