I’m having a little holiday in Brussels at the moment—hence the lack of posts lately—so I decided to take advantage of the availability of European Voice in print form, and spend a while reading in the Jubelpark, which led me to see the following quote from Barroso on why he should be re-appointed as President of the Commission:

“I am the only candidate. I am the only one who presented before the elections”

Is it just me, or does that just sound like someone with a total lack of vision for what Europe should be, and what the Commission should do for the next four years? He gives the impression that he’s interested in power for power’s sake, and feels entitled to the office. Hardly what is needed to take the EU forward, and tackle the significant things it should be tackling.

Scrolling through the BBC News web-site, I noticed an article on how much elected representatives and their staff cost the taxpayer. Sure, it’s fair enough to report those figures. I don’t have much problem with the amount of money that is needed to ensure that democracy functions in the UK, though I’m sure there are quite a few who believe that politicians should work all hours on no pay.

What I do have a problem with is Mark Wallace of the Taxpayers’ Alliance stating that the practice of politicos giving part of their salary to their party is ”effectively state funding of political parties by the back door”. At what point did the Taxpayers’ Alliance gain the right of oversight of politician’s private and personal use of their own money?! Will they next require that MPs and Councillors are limited to Lidl or Aldi from now on to ensure that the taxpayers’ money is used most effectively? And come to think of it, what’s wrong with state funding?

The public needs to have confidence that it can oversee politicians, and dismiss them if it isn’t satisfied, but the mass hatred of politicians that we have now isn’t healthy for a democratic society. It just leads to the apathy about and avoidance of politics.

It may be because I’m listening to the BBC World Service’s extremely thorough coverage of it, but there’s an awful lot of a furore about President Obama’s visit to Ghana isn’t there? It’s astonishing how a foreign leader—especially one of such a controversial state—can be so universally popular in so many countries. I can’t help but fear though, that he will be unable to do anything other than disappoint. He is the President of the USA after all, and that is where his final allegiance lies, not in the rest of the world. I’m liking the content of his speech to the Ghanaian parliament though, a refreshing change from what has come before.

Photo credit: worthbak on Flickr.

I’m finding the situation in Honduras at the moment to be an interesting one from a political theory point of view, because it raises the question of who should be considered to be the President? The one who was elected and then exiled, or the one who is in control of the country?

In the interests of standing up for democratic systems, I’d be inclined to suggest that President Zelaya has the most claim to be the legitimate premier, but frankly, without military intervention, how is he going to be able to take back power? Of course, were the de facto government of Roberto Micheletti to be recognised, it would just legitimise the use of military coup d’etats in place of civil constitutional structures, which is not really something that the world needs any more of.

Whether or not Zelaya has a democratic mandate, he is debarred from office by the realities of the situation in Tegucigalpa, so the only way that Honduras can be legitimately governed again is through the prompt holding of elections, with no army involvement. How likely is that to happen though?

It sickens me that this racist pratt represents the North West of England, an otherwise very nice place:

This video may only be available in the UK, sorry.

My support for Britain’s system of constitutional monarchy, and appreciation of the Prince of Wales’s views on many things may be a tad unpopular with a few others in the Green Party, but whether or not you’re a republican, this lecture from Prince Charles is worth watching. A lot of people criticise his insistence on taking ‘political’ stances on things when he’s not elected, but I think he’s useful for encouraging public debate. And anyway, couldn’t the following from his lecture have been written by a green?

But for all its achievements, our consumerist society comes at an enormous cost to the Earth and we must face up to the fact that the Earth cannot afford to support it. Just as our banking sector is struggling with its debts – and paradoxically also facing calls for a return to so-called “old-fashioned,” traditional banking – so Nature’s life-support systems are failing to cope with the debts we have built up there too. So, if we don’t face up to this, then Nature, the biggest bank of all, could go bust. And no amount of quantitative easing will revive it.

Link to video (BBC iPlayer link, UK only)

Link to transcript

Photo credit: rev0lvin on Flickr.

The press in any country has a duty, as the main means of communication between the people and the goings on beyond their everyday life, to reliably report on when public figures or institutions act inappropriately, allowing the public to hold them to account based on strong evidence. Of course, this perfect model has probably never existed, and I’d be naive to think that the press has ever been a thoroughly honourable institution, but the revelations on the News of the World’s extensive phone hacking just take the biscuit completely.

I haven’t yet today infected my mind with the endless speculation and incessant ‘man on the street’ views that will no doubt be playing all day on the BBC News Channel, but I imagine a fair number of people will be of the opinion that public figures are fair game, with little right to keep parts of their lives private; it’s certainly a view I’ve heard before, and it seems like it’s the view held by the News of the World journalists and executives involved in this disgrace. I may post on this again later, when I’m able to write more that my own idle speculation.

“Fix both!” is what I found myself yelling at the radio this morning, and it certainly was a cheerful piece for an environmentalist to wake up to: the One Planet programme on the BBC World Service had a piece on the economy vs. the environment, complete with vox pops from the streets of Detroit and Monrovia showing an unsurprising preference for more jobs, and the news that India had announced that it would be focussing on economic growth instead of committing to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

I got into the green movement through a campaign on poverty in the developing world, so it always baffles me when people see poverty and the environment as mutually exclusive policy areas. The Green New Deal—our version, the UN’s version, or Obama’s version; take your pick—is a great example of how ideas straight from the green movement can provide practical solutions to complex inter-linked policy areas (by the way, can you tell I’ve just done a degree in politics?). But what chance is there of the Indian government realising that?