If you’ve been following British politics at all recently, then you’ll have seen the stories of bullying in Number 10. Obviously bullying is totally wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated in any circumstance (blah, blah, blah, standard ‘I’m not a right-wing reactionary disclaimer), but this whole story has strong whiffs of orchestration to it.

The latest incarnation is perfectly timed to counter Labour’s nicked campaign slogan (we were fair first!). People will apportion far more of their attention to a bit of scandal than to a plain vanilla campaign launch. The timing is being followed up by the story being divided into tasty, bite-size portions, ready for thorough digestion by the media (new and old alike).

Anyway, it’s just speculation with no solid evidence, but is this the first shot in a negative campaign running up ’til the election? Isn’t politics nice.

I thought I should take a quick moment to highlight a fairly new and brilliant blog by a group of Scottish Green Party members. Bright Green Scotland is well worth a read, even if you’re not into Scottish politics.

Gordon Brown might have everyone (by which I mean, electoral-system-obsessed-politics-geeks of the sort who will happily engage in a passionate discussion down the pub of the merits of different forms of PR—and I would include myself in there) talking about electoral reform in the UK right now, but in terms of actual impact on the machine of politics, I’d be willing to bet that Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Treaty on European Union will be bigger, more significant, and, if we can tear ourselves away from d’Hondt versus Sainte-Laguë for long enough, subject to more geek analysis.

I like Article 11, paragraph 4, but I’m annoyed with it as well. Why am I annoyed? I’m annoyed because I signed a petition calling for the EU to raise its carbon emissions reduction targets from 20% to 30%; while that’s all well and good (why not head on over to the petition yourself?), it could be so much better if I was signing the form of petition found in Article 11: a citizens’ initiative.

A bit of digging revealed that the European Commission has consulted on implementing the initiative, and will be drawing up a regulation this year, before actually unleashing this little bit of direct democracy in 2011. I know it takes time to make laws, and it isn’t a job to rush, but Lisbon has been around for ages, surely the fleshing out of the text of the article* could have happened sooner?

*4. Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.

Article 11, paragraph 4, Treaty on European Union

Why, oh why, is Gordon Brown trying to get a referendum on proportional representation? Is it perhaps because he wants to be seen to support a nice progressive constitutional change relating to Parliament, without any danger that he will have to implement it?

The problem with a referendum is that it doesn’t work unless the voters are accurately informed about what they are voting on. It works for issues such as devolution, where people are familiar with the question; it doesn’t work with arcane, indecipherable, and soporific matters like electoral reform.

Oh well, it was nice for a while to think we might get an ever so slightly better system.

With lines like “We need a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law”, its clear to see that Palin is back, and the anti-intelligence, populist, and over-simplified world-view, is back with her. It was nice to have a little break from that for a year, but I suppose nutters will always be around to try to wreck any progress that might be made, especially in US politics.

But how much danger does Palin pose? Considering that the audience for her speech were paying $500 to attend the conference, I’m guessing that they aren’t totally representative of the entire ‘low-tax-small-government’ group; though if those attending are what is hideously termed ‘thought-leaders’, they don’t need to be completely representative. Scott Brown’s election to the Senate was another sign that there might be a shift back to the comfort of conservatism.

I’m not hugely familiar with US politics, but I watch enough of The West Wing, read enough newspapers, and know enough about the generic game of politics, to conclude that Americans aren’t necessarily turning Republican, rather they are reacting to the perception that President Obama hasn’t lived up to expectations. This isn’t an original idea of my own, but Obama needs to do something populist but sensible, while keeping up the dull, but essential, work of governing. In short, he needs to remind people of the idea of “Hope” from his campaign. But as I said, US politics is not my forté.

I guess this is how traditions are established: one is a one-off, two is a repeat, but more than three is a tradition. So, welcome to my fourth annual New Year post. I think it was at the start of 2008 that I first noted the financial turmoil, which makes it nice to see that as 2010 looms over us, the coming year might end in a rosier state than it starts. I thought it might be interesting to note down some economic and not-so-economic stats just now, and see how things stand the next time I sit down to write this post.

Still, there is more to hope for next year than simply the alleviation of economic problems. Something that marked 2009 with a great big grimy smudge was the success had by the far-right, especially the British National Party in the North West and Yorkshire, where the good Lancastrians and Yorkshire-folk are now represented in the European Parliament by fascist MEPs. The problem though, is not that people are thinking horrible things about anyone who is a little bit different, but that they have little alternative but to think that. I firmly hold the opinion that the vast majority of the BNP’s voters are not nasty people, but simply forgotten people. Every major political party has neglected these constituents, and every major political party has been on the back foot in the debates on the far-right’s core issues.

I’m not just talking about immigration and racism, the BNP, with its new, clean image (laugh if you want, but not everyone is a liberal lefty with a built-in disgust of the BNP), champions a distortion of traditional values and morals that are just similar enough in image, though little else, to the traditional values that used to form part of British society in the ‘50s. Guess where the political mainstream is (and I include the green movement in this)? Nowhere is the answer; Mr Cameron might make some inconsequential moves to offer financial incentives to getting married, and Mr Brown and Lord Mandelson might talk about Britishness in a few speeches, but the debate on values, morality, and the question of what it means to be from Britain has been firmly grasped by the likes of Mr Griffin.

Morality has, of course, traditionally been the realm of the Church. I think the best way to describe my attitude to religion would be “actively agnostic”: I don’t currently believe in any particular god or religious structure, and I don’t think it is really possible to prove the existence of God, or even of gods, but I would never say for definite that these things cannot exist; I might one day be struck with a spiritual revelation, leading to a belief of the religious kind, so it would be foolish to keep a closed mind. The advantage of this convenient fudge is that I can do stuff that atheist can’t do, while not feeling guilty for being half-hearted as an apathetic agnostic might: in short, I can go to the Watchnight Service at St Giles Kirk on Christmas Eve, and pay attention to the sermon, without a Dawkinsian complex of any kind. In this particular sermon, the Minister took the time to praise Atheists and decry agnosticism: to paraphrase him, atheists present worthy opponents in debate, whereas agnostics are responsible for the downfall of society. I’m sure he didn’t mean to present such a sharp message, but I think it goes back to what I wrote about the far-right’s grasp on debates. For a debate to be had properly, all sides must be confident enough to make pronouncements on all ideas. Bad ideas must be exposed for what they are, and good ideas must be brought forth on sturdy legs.

In the Green Party, and indeed, in all major political parties, we need to grasp the debate and say what we think about Britishness, morality, and all the other issues which are held so tightly in the fists of fascists. We need to truly talk with all of the electorate, and we need to realise that the way that we can prevail in our political ambitions is through honest and fair discourse, not through aggressive confrontation with English Defence League, or by sneeringly mocking the BNP.

For all the apparent futility in the campaign to push Rage Against The Machine’s Killing in the Name to the Christmas number one spot (sure, the profits from sales of the song went to the same musical multinational that McFabricated’s profits would have gone to, but did anyone notice that the Facebook group used to orchestrate it also managed to raise over £90,000 for Shelter?), it did raise my hopes for 2010, simply because it demonstrated a desire for a more honest and less fake way of doing things. If we can keep that spark of dissatisfaction with plastic society, then I’ll be a lot more confident that debate can be had, and perhaps even the statistics presented below might have nudged towards improvement in the next edition of this special post.

Here’s to 2010, an honest, argumentative, real, and better year!

Click here for an archive of past new year posts.

This isn’t the most immediate reaction to Copenhagen, but it was mostly written in direct reaction to the news coming out of the conclusion of the conference; it’s just taken a little while for me to have the time to post.

All throughout the Copenhagen Conference, I was trying to remind myself that a week or two before the whole thing started I answered a question in my economics class on whether anything seriously significant and actually useful would come from the Conference with a resolute “not a chance”. I was trying to remind myself of this to keep from getting my hopes up: Obamaesque rhetoric and the occasional positive news story from the Danish capital are too easy to grasp on when you think the need for a strong and binding agreement is as important as I think it is.

I’m glad I did this, because my conclusion after the leak of the ‘Danish text’ (though I can hardly claim the credit for this conclusion, I almost certainly copied it off some commentator in a newspaper or blog) that we’d mess around this time and procrastinate the decision to a comfortingly distant point—and one which naturally had nothing to do with four or five year electoral cycles—, seems to be fairly accurate. When I wrote the bulk of this post, I hadn’t had much time to digest the news from the COP15 (I was having an adventure by choosing the very best day to take the train from the Netherlands to Edinburgh), but I did see the following which I quote from the BBC News web-site,

“However, he added that the deal was not enough to prevent dangerous climate change in the future – but nonetheless was an important first move.”

Bali was the “important first move”; the EU’s Energy and Climate Package was preparatory legislation; Barcelona was the end stages of negotiation! Right now, all I can see is that when we finally get ‘round to having another set of negotiations for proper and legally-binding action to tackle climate change, we’ll come out of it saying that we have laid the groundwork for co-operation and further discussion.

If we talk because that is what is easy, then we are cowards.

I’m being cynical about human nature, but are we seriously going to wait until things get really bad before we even start to do anything to fix what is one of, if not the, biggest problem facing humanity right now? It’s almost enough to make me want to turn to revolutionary socialism just so that I have a political black hole to throw all my energy into; and anyone who knows me, knows that if something is driving me to the socialists, it must be getting to me a fair bit!

I’m annoyed that the COP15 was scheduled for now. Not for any great political reason, but because I have end of semester exams this week, so I can’t really write about the Conference—or do much apart from write about Anglo-European relations in 1950 or attempt to comprehend standard deviation and t-tests—until Friday, when I hope to get plenty of catch-up blogging done. Check back then though, I’m sure the end of the Conference will spark some reaction from my likely weary mind.