After a run-up that fell rather short of the hype a result which is less than stunning. David gets over 17,000, the Greens almost 2,000 and…What, exactly?

I wanted to write something on this matter but find myself with absolutely nothing to say. A remarkably uninspiring result.

Rowan Williams yesterday struck out at the break-away faction in terms that were certainly a lot more vigorous than he is known for. Desperate times call for desperate men.

In his piece on the matter last month Douglas argued that the schism was a cause for joy amongst athiests. This is of course untrue and instead appropriate for anti-clericists and anti-theists, a largely inter-locking pair of factions who the Anglican Church have perhaps done more than any other Christian denomination to consider the criticisms of. I can think of no mainstream Christian Church closer to harmless.

This Church being torn in two and half of it being now utterly unrestrained in its bigotry {which is rather formidable in places} is perhaps not the most pleasing state of affairs imaginable. We can but hope that the importance of all religion fades and that the division within the Church weakens its resources and causes both sects to die away. Rather like happened to failed political project, Respect. Not to mention a plethora of other political parties.

Sadly a protracted demise does not tend to happen to Churches for a while longer. Or at least has a far lengthier duration. At least mild amusement is resulting from this one. For instance not the phrase “Protestant sect” being used against the Conservatives, with a claim that this is all that they amount to. As opposed to the Anglican Church, which…?

Worth a read is Ali’s response, which is, as ever on these matters, so well informed and heavily considered I feel like an amateurish ignorant when approaching this issue by comparison. In it he opines that a split was “Inevitable”. I imagine so but articles such as this were doubtless unhelpful. Rational analyses of the institution of marriage were doubtless highly provocative, although not least because it left the conservative case entirely in shreds.

It also makes it pretty clear that considered thinkers such as Chane can not co-exist in a Church also including deranged reactionaries such as Akinola, especially not while both fill prominent positions. Of the two it would cause far more numerical damage to lose the latter, but intellectually I have little doubt as to which would be better to collaborate with.

So it was the position no leader of any organisation would want to place himself in: compromise quality and lose the masses or cede to fierceness and be forced to purge some of the finest thinkers the Church has? An unenviable position for any man, so perhaps for Williams, someone without a doubt a man with the air of the ditherer about him, the reactionary wing forcing his hand is something of a relief.

At any rate, we can only hope that the manner he has adopted in relation to this issue {if anything one too soft} is sustained. Whether I actually desire reconciliation between the two factions is somthing I am presently uncertain over.

Ali suggested yesterday that Labour might privatise itself to avoid bankruptcy. The very possibility of such constitutes an affont to democracy - as it would for any parliamentary party. The danger is summed up well in a paragrph late on in Ali’s piece:

This would only work if assets were available. None currently are, but the party is in government so policy is its biggest asset. Policy could be bid over so, for example, Murdoch might pay £10m to have the abolition of the licence fee in the manifesto. MPs and party members would doubtless object to many proposals, but the alternative is the NEC members becoming collectively bankrupt and party accounts being shut. There goes any election campaign.

The threat is very real. From the New Statesman comes this enlightening admission:

Quite how those who are courting this rapidly declining asset stand to benefit is unclear. Another businessman who is part of the “Syndicate”, as he puts it, is less guarded. If new Labour became a “limited liability party”, it might be possible, he says - not entirely jokingly - to “sell non-core policies, from a customer perspective, as three-to five-year options on implementation in office”. These could include policy sales to the nuclear industry or to the green lobby. “This,” he points out, “could help ensure that national policies achieve the highest returns. And that could only benefit the shareholders - or, as they used to be known, the party members.”

The part is in government. They can therefore hand policy over to whoever will pay. They become shareholders, and run effectively decide what the government does - much as shareholders do to businesses on the market. The NEC is saved from financial doom, the shareholders have their interests seen to, and the voters are forgotten.

It would, after all, be the voters who lose out here. They’re the ones who are meant to pass judgement on government policy, at election time. Whatever NS’ source says on core and non-core policies - already vague, given that at present “core” adds up to a washy commitment to equality for Labour - this system means that manifesto policies voted on at election could simply fly out the window. And with them, the very point of representative government.

“How is this any different to the current system?” you might ask. “Organisations already buy policy from parties, in practise if not theory. The unions and the tycoons for Labour, the tycoons and business for the Tories. It happens.”

And yes, it does happen. But nothing now could be as direct or as forceful as a shareholder system in subverting democracy. There’s at least a semblence of internal democracy in the political parties: members vote on major positions and changes. If a politician has taken cash from a donor and made a decision they oppose, they’ve the opportunity to pressure them and reverse the policy. And it’s relatively fair and equal: one member, one vote.

But there’s a very different semblence of democracy in shareholder-based organisations. Shareholders too can hold their appointees to account, with one, important difference. Where political parties give a vote per membership, and only allow you one membership, shaeholder systems allocate votes per share.

And you can own more than one share. So if you’re rich and interested and buy a majority holding, you can in effect force whatever you want through. One share, one vote - and lots of shares if you can afford it.

Rich shareholders would thus force policies on a party far more reliably than rich donors do at present. The Statesman’s source’s example of the nuclear lobby and the green lobby is a good example. The nuclear lobby tends to be far better funded than its opposition - energy companies versus concerned citizens. They could buy up a large quantity of shares and swamp the smaller, but more numerous, bulk of members. It potentially wouldn’t matter if there was a massive grassroots movement in the party against nuclear development - if the nuclear lobby had enough shares, they could outvote them. And we’d have nuclear power, whether we’d voted for it or not.

Major national decisions would end up in the hand of those that can pay. Very democratic.

If you want a taste of what this might lead to, see this chilling statement from another interested party:

“We have been watching how Silvio Berlusconi created Forza Italia in parallel to his business interests, and we believe that our idea offers a fascinating adaptation to British conditions.”

Silvio Berlusconi is a massive media tycoon who bought into politics with his wallet and his right wing populism. Look at where he is now, and what he’s done.

Rupert Murdoch is a massive media tycoon. Look at what he could do if he bought into politics…

It could happen. And democracy would be dead.

You may have noticed a distinct absence of posts about the massive amount of death that occurred recently first in Burma and then in China. I can not speak for my companions but personally a sense of impotence overwhelmed me when considering these issues. Certainly, I had observations: that it was bizarre first one troubled land filled with Chinese tendrils being struck and then the source of the aforementioned. That the scale of the death was effectively beyond my comparison.

I suppose that the main reason that none of this manifested itself in a post here is that there are no real suggestions that can be done. Few disputes that can be made. Lives must be saved and the assistance my words can give is minimal.

All I can do is link you here and then beg you to donate. So here goes: the death toll for Burma alone just struck 78,000. I doubt any amount of money could prevent us reaching 80,000 but who knows, if you bittorrent a few CDs instead of buying them or wear the same pair of jeans instead of buying new ones or temporarily abandon whatever the fuck it is you do that wastes your money on anything less important than human life then please, at least consider donating so perhaps we don’t have to reach 85,000.

Personally I would contribute but currently all my money is either gone already on funding the mortgage or increasingly diminishing on family food. Just in case you were considering blaming my rather combative writing style upon this then please consider that when we were mildly more well-off I was downright misanthropic and then reconsider.

Politically I hope that this dislodges a pair of otherwise seemingly implacable and entirely ethics-devoid regimes. China has acted decisively and swiftly {according to state media} which James Fallows argues is largely in response of past failure to handle vast natural crises. Burma, meanwhile, seems to have spent more attention on rigging the referendum than helping the people.

Irrespective of their handling of this for a plethora of past failings both of these regimes deserve destruction and if these immense events of epic destruction help bring out their end then at least some good has come of these inevitable atrocities.

“Good for politics, good for London.”

I’m going to stop myself plunging off of the handle here. It’s a powerful temptation but I’m going to play up the optimism and tone down the woe as much as possible. We’ve lost a fine leader and are going to be a socialist out-post no longer. This is a true pity and it remains to be seen how much of the good can get over-turned. Ken was humble and calm and made me miss him instantly, taking all of the blame personally. I would also, however, blame Paddick who remains entirely inexplicable to me, especially now he revealed his secret second preference party of choice was not Labour, as I had assumed, but instead the Left List. If he’d said it then perhaps they’d have gotten a headline or two and not had to sneak onto the front-page via a few of their signs being held at the NUT strike.

But I’m only bad-mouthing the Trots to make myself feel better. It’s a miserable event, the Tories even sweeping well past the 9 required to 11. I’m still not sure about that, though: coverage has been a total mess and most of the sources we used to follow it {the Guardian and Stop Boris} admitted as much.

On the bright side…

He’s probably the best member of the Conservative Party going.

He’s suggested that getting rid of Brown and replacing him with Miliband would be wise. That is correct.

Ken gets more time with his five children.

Ken might come back, who knows.

Perhaps this first, early dosage of Tory smugness will give me some degree of immunity from a general election win.

The BNP have not made as great an advance as could have occurred, although still expanding their vote. Given that UKIP are no longer really of note and the English Democrats are still a bad joke this
should concern them and encourage us. Barnbrook got a seat, which might mean that the party holds itself together, but I’m sure that Douglas & his Green chums at the GLA could arrange a viewing of HMS Discovery in City Hall in honour of that. Turning woe into lulz is win.

There is bad stuff, of course. The gas guzzlers will go unhindered and unharassed, free to spill their C02 while the housing plans he has in mind are shoddy nonsense. His approach to crime is vague and idiotic and his head seems to have been turned thoroughly by editing the Spectator. A supporter of Bush is going to struggle to represent London properly and I imagine that his comments about Islam could, if repeated, spark a riot or two. He could be a Tory puppet, which would effectively leave the Conservative Party in command of the city. At best he will ruin everything and frighten the voters away come the general, which rather seems to treat London as a city sacrifice.

Who knows, perhaps he’ll do a fine job. We have to hope. That’s all we can do, at the moment.

The Evening Standard has, I think, reached a new low.  Observe the headline of their lead article today:

Suicide bomb backer runs Ken’s campaign

Really?  Let’s compare that accusation, printed in big, black letters across every newboard in London, with what’s actually in the article:

“It includes a campaign of vilification aimed at his Conservative rival, Boris Johnson. It is being waged by Muslims 4 Ken, led by 39-year-old lecturer Anas Altikriti and Palestinian-born Azzam Tamimi, a supporter of Hamas, the militant group dedicated to the creation of an Islamic state of Palestine.”

So - Tamimi runs a group backing Ken. He does not run, “Ken’s campaign,” with the official sanction and funding this implies. There’s a difference.

A man who endorses suicide bombings is undoubtedly vile. Ken might do well to disown him, just as Boris did the BNP’s second preference endorsement. But to conflate being supported by a group and that group running the campaign is absurd.  Did they claim the BNP ran Boris’ campaign when they endorsed him?  Of course not.  And yet this is the way they spin it with Livingstone…

It’s to be expected from the Evening Standard, of coursser.  They’ll smear any leftist who ever has a chance of winning as much as possible.  I’ll still complain about them, though…

Barack wins big, as anticipated.

I have to say that I feel rather sorry for this small state, which with under 610,000 inhabitants has the second smallest population of any state and is around twice as populous as Ealing.

By staging its primary upon the same day as a pair of leviathans it effectively condemns itself to being disregarded in a fashion that those littering the days between this one and Super Tuesday do not suffer from.

All the same, heart can be taken, at least, from the fact that in the eyes of Mark Penn those eleven states proceeding this one and Vermont itself are all equally worthless.

It strikes me that we here at SES have written a grand total of nothing about the recent findings concerning anti-depressants, or in fact any other scientific matter. At all.

This is most likely for the perfectly valid reason that none of us know anything much about it, at least as far as I am aware, but given that I am a stalwart defender of empiricism {or at least try to be} my take here is devoid of any real grounding in the knowledge required but at least impassioned {not that that matters to science, but still…}:

My problem with much of the media response is that it seemed to consist of arguments along the lines of “Oh, well you see, its still something that has effects. It doesen’t matter that they’re “Mere” placeboes, since they actually -do- something, after all, and with drugs that’s all that matters, right?”

Well, yes. It rather is, this logic holds just so long as there is no other effect of taking the drugs. Which makes this study a very strong case in favour of using for doctors starting to diagnose their patients pure sugar. It is clear that placeboes have a notable impact upon this form of mental disorder.

But to propose something that mangles minds in all -sorts- of ways beyond the depression and actually do a grand total of…Nothing. Nothing besides assisting your expections, is patently irrational. And only, I fear, being argued since Big Pharma can not make -that- much money out of peddling C₁₂H₂₂O1.

Especially since sugar pills will never you impotent, whereas Prozac often will. As a tramp-poem I once read in The Big Issue asked: “How can a drug which stops you having sex possibly make you any happier?”
I would here recommend Ben Goldacre’s article on the topic and say that that makes me right but that, of course, would be the form of appeal to authority fallacy that he detests above all else. So don’t accept it because you think it’s impressive that he’s a doctor {in fact he usually does his best to cover that up} and don’t accept it because he’s never been wrong before {although he hasn’t}, just read the article and accept it because he’s right.

Sugar pills are the future, glorified impotence causing snake oil the past. Progress still the norm.