Siân Berry has a new website. This pleases me.

A good way to waste money

Quoth Lebedev. Couldn’t have put it better myself. Let’s cleave though the “REDS take over our paper!” guff which I alluded to in my title to examine this peculiar investment.

When I saw the billionaire former state-stripper and current despised exile speak late last year his ideas were being kept firmly beneath his hat. At one stage he replied to a question asking him for “Concrete” plans to match his abstract and ideological criticisms of Putin’s centralising tendencies and he replied baldly that he had none. Additional to this the lack of amplification meant that even if he had opted to eluciate we might not have heard him.

But this is a big, bold move. A clear instance of him flexing the muscle endowed upon him by looting the corpse of the Soviet Union (or perhaps that should be him being one of the few permitted to butcher the rich carcass) and doubtless this is an acquisition of another outlet for his anti-Putin views to be aired through.

I know little of Lebedev’s exact politics (he was clearly a localist, but in Russian terms that could mean something far less significant, here…) but feel safe in the assumption that he’s less of a dull rightist than the Daily Mail group (which have gone from rightist stalwarts to sharing offices with The Independent and selling off their organs to the Russians), and with any luck this will manifest itself in the paper’s line. I don’t know whether he’ll be able to redeem the wretched rag, but there’s  a possibility that at least in its last years those ubiquitous billboards can be devoid of “Ken = Terrorist” style fiascos.

I imagine that this news has unsettled Boris more than slightly.

Inspired by Bensix I offer the following:

Aaronovitch: You should be very, very careful about comparing people to the Nazis. Incidentally, Hamas = Nazis.

Freddie makes a sterling post describing the impact of the left hawks. It’s a great piece, as so many of his are. He’s a magnanimous victor, which is invariably the best kind, who makes it clear that the exact reason he proposes mercy for the hawks is that their itching desire to start purging was their worst feature. Although they occasionally reached that stage in a non sequitorious flourish things were perhaps not quite as bad, but when there is a sizable community where the entirety disputes Hugo Chavez’s claim to left affiliation we’re near enough getting there. What we lacked was an anti-war left insurgent capable of getting elected (besides George Galloway, that is, who was termed a “Maverick” by the media in what was a fairly blatant establishment cipher for “We hope that this doesn’t happen more often) and by this stage it’s rather too late.

Perhaps a further comparison to them is required, but I’m too lazy and tired to give it at present.

Meanwhile Mr. Miller 2.0 talks about “White Working Class” and the other kind. Not a word wrong, as per usual.

Here Janine talks banners and Holocausts and is correct: I saw so many on the Sunday protest they basically ended up passing me by, but that’s inflammatory stuff and I doubt it does a lot of good. The aforementioned Gorgeous George makes a distinction between “Capital H” Holocaust and, presumably, the other differently defined and less horrifying lower case h sort here (also worth a listen for his interview with *l!ver K@mm, where he calls Ka*m a “Banker” repeatedely and succeeded in pissing him off so much he made two whiny posts on the matter, which is probably as butthurt as the man is allowed to get) but I’m not quite sure that that’s good enough. GG, at least, bothers to make the distinction between an industrial attempt at racial obliteration and the deeply devastating but greatly smaller scale and incredibly more sporadic bombing of Gaza.

And finally, Craig Murray restrains himself laudably on the topic of Gordon Brown. An example to us all.

The following proposal is vile:

THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant.

The move, which follows a decision by the European Union’s council of ministers in Brussels, has angered civil liberties groups and opposition MPs. They described it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state which drives “a coach and horses” through privacy laws.

The hacking is known as “remote searching”. It allows police or MI5 officers who may be hundreds of miles away to examine covertly the hard drive of someone’s PC at his home, office or hotel room.

Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging.

Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property. The strategy will allow French, German and other EU forces to ask British officers to hack into someone’s UK computer and pass over any material gleaned.

That’s the equivalent of allowing a policeman into every living room to listen to every conversation, without a warrant. The vagueness of the legislation simply invites abuse. Police may indulge in this espionage if they “believe” it’s “proportionate”; that is, whenever they feel like it. There is no check on this power, and so no check on its abuse.

And the idea comes from the EU Council of Ministers - which means, if previous experience is anything to go by, it’ll be quite hard to shift. Are they really trying to put the entire internet off the entire institution?

Annoyingly his comments on homosexuality have allowed Benedict’s main thrust here to be disregarded. I know that the implications for gays are significant and doubtless some of the thinner skinned might find his words offensive, but it’s hardly the main jist. This follows a long-standing and much noted upon pattern: the Pope says something foolish which has implications for near enough everyone and only the elements related to a minority are picked up upon.

This is why you see gay Catholics as somehow seen as having some additional burden which heterosexuals are free from. In reality the straight Romans are permitted only the outlet of sex within a marriage where they intend to procreate, with everyone who spills a drop of sperm outside of those precise conditions a sinner. This should make it fairly obvious to all but the clinically naive that Catholicism is incompatible with virtually all strains of sexuality. Homosexuals who live other than chaste existences are only as defiant as their legion brethren who have disregarded the absurdly restrictive laws applied to them to.

So now Benedict assails gender theory (next up: mind) and much the same occurs: an edict which applies to the totality of humanity is presented as something which is worth discussing only with regards to humanity. This is clearly a foolish approach. When Benedict speaks of a matter such as this he speaks of everyone, there can be nobody excluded.

What makes it so frustrating that this was that his reason is so shoddy. Indeed he states “The Church speaks of human nature as ‘man’ or ‘woman’ and asks that this order is respected” without so much as a jot of evidence. Apparently the importance of this dichotomy and its inherency can be deduced by “Listening to the language creation”, although Ratzinger fails to elaborate, instead declaring that disregarding this mysterious linguistical muttering would mean “self-destruction”.

But on one thing, at least, we can agree:

The human being wants to make himself on his own and to decide always and exclusively by himself about what concerns him.

Precisely. And so, to content them, we should not assume their nature through minor physiological details.

Jennie Rigg (better known as The Yorkshire Gob) cries foul over Sunny Hundal’s removal of her reply to this post. In its comments section some harsh words are said on each sides before the post is re-instated. Douglas’ ideological response to the spat is to be found here and I have little to add save the quote “I am a communist because I am a liberal”, which I came across in Peter Clarke’s excellent Hope and Glory.

Regardless, from a more tactical perspective I hope that this issue doesn’t drive the issue apart. Liberal Conspiracy is far from fun enough as it is without losing perhaps its best writer. Much as my personal enjoyment of that website is limited I can easily see the value in having an influential and well read blog of that both unites the left and acts as a forum for its intellectual splendour.

As for the post removal: well its not my place to tell the clearly more competent (or at very least far more successful) Mr. Hundal how to run his site, but speaking as a sporadic reader I wouldn’t describe the blog as overwhelmed by a deluge of posts without remorse or let up. Indeed, if it was perhaps I’d be a rather more regular reader. I think that bloggers have yet to bear in mind what television producers have been aware of since soon after the outset of that medium: it is, above all, motion that catches the eye.

A static blog is an infrequently visited one.

This considered Jennie’s reference to Hundal telling “us” (those within the LC writers clique, presumably) that they should post more often is understandable. Additionally, this makes it curious that a lengthy, distinct and in-depth post was removed.

Since Culture 11 survived its drama so to should the LibCon. I hope that Sunny adopts a more laissez faire approach to posting henceforth. Or else just switches off the “writer” accounts and has done with it.

Apologies for the absence of the SES assured post on this one. I may manage to write something at some length in the near future, but for the time being:

• We could hope for no better steerer than John McDonnell, an obvious visionary who most (or at least enough) can agree upon as awesome.
• The G20 might not have been the best early target. I understand that this is a momentum gaining exercise, but both interest and the scope to have an immense impact is low. I am all up for a foray into internationalism, though.
• The whole “Editorial Committee” thing is probably neccessary but the implementation could be problematic: who gets on it? What are their guidelines? What material gets rejected?
• When he mentioned that no groups were going to get excluded my mind couldn’t help but wander to my dear comrades, the CPGB(ML).
• Just getting a room together as we did was an achievement, one that needs to be built upon and repeated.
• Annoyingly the fact that the next time that that’ll happen being on the 12th means I won’t be able to attend. ;_;
• Miller really should have come to the pub. I’m sure somebody would have fed him and I feel sort of annoyed that I didn’t recognise him and say hello when he was sitting right next to me.
• Penny Red’s housemate looked much like I imagined one would.

Some weeks ago, Ken Livingstone (and a range of associates) launched Progressive London. In its own words, it:

…campaigns to maintain and develop the progressive policies which London pursued at the beginning of the 21st century prior to the election of the present Tory London administration.

The campaign was inaugurated by Ken Livingstone, and aims to bring together a broad coalition of campaigns, communities, artists, trade unions, environmentalists, politicians from different political parties, community groups and individuals, who believe in social justice, excellent public services, environmental protection, good community relations, cultural innovation, a decent future for our young people and the many other areas in which London makes a progressive contribution recognised throughout the world.

In short, an attempt to create a broad-based, non-partisan coalition to forward progressive policies. Or, at least, present a united front against Boris. Neat idea, no?

If it were that simple. The project looks flawed even at this stage; a vehicle built by Ken to promote policies devised by Ken in Ken’s mayorality looks suspiciously like one to spearhead his re-election campaign in 2012. That might put off anyone who suppports the policies but worries a further Ken campaign will just split the left vote.

The impression isn’t helped by the organisation’s apparently top-down structure. Outside participation looks limited at present. You can subscribe to a newsletter, and you can come to the conference and listen to all of PL’s wonderful speakers. And you can sign their petition; apparently a “step-up” in activity. The approach seems to be that of a party organising activists, rather than organising a mass base.

That’s a shame, as the concept could have promise, both in and out of City Hall. Bringing groups on the GLA together to form a coherent opposition should help; Boris is barely accountable as it is. And likewise in general. Grouping together around shared ideals should advance those ideals, by removing unecessary competition from the field. If two or three groups agree on, say, 70% of policy, and disagree with one group on the same, doesn’t it make sense for those three to work against that one group?

Some suggestions, then. Any individual not immediately affiliated to Ken (maybe)-2012 would be rightly suspicious that the project is more about electing the man rather than the policies. And these are the people PL needs, as those already with Ken presumably might stick with him now. So, they need to be given a stake in the campaign.

The most convincing way to do that is to give them a say in the group’s direction. That, presumably already happens to a degree with that wide group of individuals from outside Ken’s team already involved. But they only give the group a narrow base, again at the top; who, without a wider support base, won’t turn out people to campaign and so only have limited influence themselves. It’s impossible to use the heights of local government to advance progressive policies when you don’t command those heights as no-one felt like going and and persuade people to give them to you.

Progressive London thus needs to build an enthusiastic, interested range of activists. It’ll only do that if they do feel they have a stake in the campaign; which means somehow opening it to grassroots participation. Here, the internet looks to be a smart option. Activists can make their voices heard through blogs and forums, individuals can make donations of whatever size they need. It presents a quick and cheap way to allow people to feel interested and engaged. And that, of course, doesn’t take into account the organisational power of tools like Facebook. If the new media can work for a President and House in the USA, why not for a Mayor and GLA in London?

New media already plays some role in London politics. This year’s election saw what must be the greatest engagement so far in British politics between an election and localised blogging. Sites like Stop Boris grew from a few posts to thousands of readers. Some videos went vaguely viral. Even outside the election, blogs and forums play a greater role than ever. Local blogs about; just look at the blogroll here. The central media opposition to Boris in office hasn’t come from the papers, but BorisWatch and Tory Troll. The closest this mayoralty has come to mass political activity, the Great Tube Piss-up of June, was organised through Facebook. Politics in London is moving onto the internet, and Progressive London would do well to exploit that.

Oh, and tone down the reference to Ken in the “About” section? I know the name has power, but it didn’t work when splattered all over the propaganda in May, and it doesn’t look like it’ll draw much more favour now.

Snigger:

Users of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer are being urged by experts to switch to a rival until a serious security flaw has been fixed.

When even Microsoft tell you not to use their own product, shouldn’t that serve as a general hint?