Rupert's Read

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/rupert_read/2007/11/the_breakthrough_we_greens_nee.html My piece today in the _Guardian_ on the leadership win. Do register on the site and leave a comment!

You heard it here first...: The result of the referendum ballot inside the Green Party - to decide whether or not the party should have a recognisable Leadership team - has resulted in success for the ‘Yes’ message, with well over a 2/3rds majority. The final result is 73% to 27%, with almost exactly half of the membership turning out to vote. The members have spoken, in overwhelming numbers. South-East Euro-MP Caroline Lucas, one of the party's two Principal Speakers, said: "I'm delighted about this result. The party can now move forward together and onto the job in hand: we have an urgent green message to communicate, and many votes to win." Green London Assembly member Darren Johnson and outgoing ‘Yes’ Campaign Manager commented from Brussels , " This is a fantastic day for the Green Party and will help ensure we have a party that is understandable, recognisable and effective. But we now need to demonstrate to all our members, regardless of w...

City Council meeting this week was pretty lively. During the debate over congestion charging, I gently heckled Cllr. Antony Little of the Conservatives, who is vehemently opposed to congestion charging, pointing out to him that it was his own Party [at the County level] that was actually pushing congestion charging for Norwich. His response was most intriguing and amusing: “It may be my Party – but I’ve got a brain.” Was he perhaps meaning: As opposed to his County colleagues (one of whom was sitting immediately on his left as he spoke), who by implication do not?...!

Only a day to go now, thank goodness, before we know the result of the Leadership referendum in the Green Party. Darren Johnson, on behalf of the Green Yes campaign, in advance of the referendum result, said the following: Advance statement to the Party “Turnout has been very high by Green Party standards, perhaps well over 40%, which shows the interest our members have had in the future direction of the Party. “Win or lose, we will respect the verdict of the members. “We thank the supporters of the No Campaign for their help in organising and attending meetings and for providing a stimulating debate.”

The RED PEPPER debate is going strong... Here is my second (and probably final) letter, replying to Shahrar's article, replying to my original article (see link at left, or go down below at http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2007/11/red-pepper-debate-on-green-leadership.html): Dear Shahrar; Thanks for your thoughtful letter. Obviously, there is much that we have in common. But I think we are still going to disagree about this one… You doubt my claim that having a Leader and Deputy or Co-Leaders would enhance accountability. Perhaps then you would like to address the case of the Scots Green Party? See e.g. my letter in the _Guardian_ on this topic: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/comment/0,,2210036,00.html . Or see Mark Ballard’s and Patrick Harvie MSP’s comments, at http://www.greenyes.org/quotes.html . If the Scottish experience has been very clearly that formally-recognised Leadership enhances accountability, why should we doubt that it will in England and Wales too...

My new Wikipedia page is up and running! Take a look - any suggestions on how to add to it would be more than welcome.

I have two new books out this year, "Philosophy for Life" and "Applying Wittgenstein" . For anyone who has read them already, please feel free to post comments. If you haven't taken a look yet but are interested, both books are available on Amazon.co.uk (just follow the above links from each book). Check out Continuum for a more thorough description of "Applying Wittgenstein". For more details, or for an overview of other books I've published, visit my UEA website here .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_westminster_hour/7112259.stm HERE IS LAST NIGHT'S 'WESTMINSTER HOUR' READY TO LISTEN AGAIN : This features Jonathon Porritt arguing in favour of 'Yes' vote!

The fundamental problem, the underlying reason why we see more bad driving and bad cycling than we used to, is individualism (neo-liberalism, consumerism, materialism). People increasingly act selfishly unless they are forced to do otherwise, because our individualistic culture teaches them that it is acceptable to do so . This is the single biggest reason why many people cycle without lights, and on pavements, and why many drivers increasingly run red lights, block intersections, treat cyclists as scum, etc. Until we change the whole political and economic system, we will make limited progress in this matter. This is yet another reason why a new Greener Britain is so desperately needed.

Cycling on the pavement ain't right. But even so, do ask yourself when was the last time that you heard of a cyclist causing serious injury or death to someone? Whereas speeding and irresponsible and drunk etc drivers cause serious injuries or death roughly twice a week , in Norwich, for example. Cyclists should ride legally. But they should not be demonised when they do not do so -- because often they do not do so because of terrible road design, of feeling / being unsafe from cars, etc.; and because even when they do not do so they still pose very little risk of causing serious injury or death, compared to cars. Once again: I don't in the least condone anti-social cycling. But whenever I hear someone demonising cyclists, I have the sneaking suspicion that maybe, just maybe, they are thereby making themselves feel better about doing something more dangerous, themselves: namely, driving a car...

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/commentary/OneWorld.aspx "'Climate change' or climate crisis?"

Norfolk County Councillors have just raised their allowances by 28%. I agree that it is fishy that the County Council increased their own allowances massively when they are about to be abolished -- but in general, Council allowances ought to be higher. If you compute the hourly rate of pay that most Councillors (the ones who work hard -- which is most of us -- and the rest can always be voted out!) earn from their Council work, it probably comes to below minimum wage. In my case it certainly does -- I reckon that I work in effect about 60 hours a month on Council business, averged out over the year, for which I get paid a little over £300. Hardly a handsome sum. If Councillors' allowances are low, then the only people who do the job are pensioners, the rich, 'housewifes', etc. . Surely, we want our Councillors to represent the population at large, not just a fortunate minority?

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article702.html Me in RED PEPPER on why there is nothing remotely leftwing about being opposed to the Green Party having a Leader.

Here is my final post advocating a 'Yes' vote... Climate crisis is here [see my _Guardian_ piece on this, at http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/rupert_read/2007/11/emergency_talk.html ]. How to lead a way out of it? If we had 500 years, maybe we could afford to move at the current painfully-slow pace of political evolution. But we don’t have 500 years – we don’t even have 50. We must effect huge policy changes within the next decade. So for green politicians just being different just ain’t good enough – we need to make a difference. A very big difference – and fast. Global over-heat is of course a different sort of crisis – because its climax is in the future. Decisions now may create a better future -- but the full effects of those decisions, good or bad, won’t be known for a long time. A measure of our success will precisely be that people never knew quite how terrifying -- how devastated -- things could become. It’s a no-brainer that, in this situation, the...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2215376,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=environment For the latest, in the _Guardian_, on the leadership issue... Just one week to go, now!

http://bookshop.blackwell.co.uk/jsp/id/Applying_Wittgenstein/9780826494504 [If you want an easier read, though, try my ‘Philosophy for Life’ in Local Links, below at left.]

http://www.facebook.com/pr ofile.php?id=14529760141 For those of you on Facebook, here is my 'public figure' Facebook page, if you want to go to it.

My letter http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/comment/0,,2210036,00.html Responses http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/story/0,,2212602,00.html

One argument that the NO campaign have been making quite a bit in these last weeks of the referendum campaign is that they think that a good argument for not having a leader is that is that the media will FOCUS and pick on a leader like they would not pick on 'principal speakers'. This would concern their past conduct, current weaknesses, and if there any signs of inconsistency between what they say and how they actually conduct their life, etc. NO activists think that this would be more detrimental to the general situation than any bit of extra attention we would receive. Now I think three things about this argument: 1) It is simply false. Yes, the media would focus in on our leader, and look for problems; but given that they wouldn't FIND so many problems (Caroline e.g. would never have a Lexus drive behind her as she cycles!), we will PROFIT out of this extra scrutiny. 2) Even those who suffer from intense media scrutiny (e.g. Cameron) also profit by it. Look how Cameron...

A key reason why people stopped using the term ‘global warming’ is that ‘climate change’ is a ‘safe’ substitute for ‘global warming’, because of patchiness – the chaoticness, in fact… -- of the latter phenomenon. Because, for instance, as manmade climate change proceeds to over-heat the Earth, it will introduce some local cooling effects – most strikingly, if it yields Gulf Stream switch-off. That is of course no reason not to use the more humanly accurate terms (than ‘climate change’) that I propose in my posts below: climate chaos, climate emergency, etc. . But also, we need to recognise the other key reason, the reason detailed in Steven Poole’s book (see also http://www.newstatesman.com/200602200020 ), that I mention in my Guardian article [posted below]: that governmental pressure and business pressure impacted directly on IPCC, an intergovernmental body, not a group of scientists. It is naïve in the extreme – absurd, in fact -- to think that an intergovernmental group is imm...

Scientists can teach us all there is to know about facts. They can tell us what we need to know about changes-in-themselves; but not about values. Not about why those changes _matter_. Science is silent for instance about catastrophes, in the human sense of that word. If we are to take as a lesson from that that we ought not to talk at all using any value-laden terms, this would be a gross fallacy, a SCIENTISTIC error. Ought we to give up the term 'the _Holocaust_'? Ought we to refuse to speak of the fate of the Easter Islanders when their civilisation collapsed as _tragic_? Ought we to refuse to speak of the _chaos_ wrought by the Asian tsunami? [One could go even further: a rigorously scientistic thinker might argue that to speak (for instance) of macular degeneration is to speak in an inappropriately value-laden way. Perhaps we should speak instead of 'macular change' (or at most of 'significant macular change leading to altered macular functioning')...] From...

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/rupert_read/2007/11/emergency_talk.html Sad to see the many comments below the article from those many who are in one way or another in denial... [Join the conversation? But if you do so, I would urge you to try to exercise some respect and restraint towards those you disagree with in the conversation, even where that respect has not been shown to me...] ...Anyway, don't worry: this messenger isn't for shooting... ...The very real danger -- the likelihood , unless we make something very big happen, very fast -- of climate catastrophe within the lifetime of many of us, means that the insults and ignorance of certain vocal commenters [some of whom are the usual suspects, who will be known to some of you from other unpleasant virtual encounters] is no more than water off one's back... Here, for the keen, is the original unexpurgated article before it was edited down to standard Comment-is-free length by the _Guardian_ team: To speak of ‘cli...

I blogged several weeks ago [ http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2007/10/who-will-lead-on-combatting-dangerous.html ] on Britain's hidden dreadful record on CO2 emissions, including Britain's responsibility, indirectly, for much of the emissions from China, India etc. (through being their carbonemissions-heavy products, etc.). At the time, I had not picked up on the fact that Phil Woolas, Minister of Climate Change had in fact already admitted on 20 th September, in a speech, that things might be even slightly worse than I had claimed. Quoting now from Woolas: “ we see that as much as 15% of world carbon emissions are a direct result of UK economic activity both at home and abroad. “ Full context: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ministers/speeches/phil-woolas/pw070920.htm ‘Many people regard any action taken by the UK in decreasing carbon emissions as insignificant. Indeed, this is the case if we look arithmetically only at emissions within the UK . However it is important to...

Time for a leader Leader article Monday November 12, 2007 The Guardian The tension between ideals and pragmatism is familiar to everyone with any experience of radical politics. The struggle to reconcile members' aspirations with the harsh demands of flawed reality has dominated the past of Labour and Liberal Democrats, and countless others around the world. Now, after nearly 10 years brewing, the Green party is finally to decide whether to abandon its brave experiment with a less hierarchical internal structure and bow to the conventional form of one party, one leader. The supporters of the latter, led by the MEP Caroline Lucas, and Prince Charles's favourite Green, Jonathan Porritt, succinctly argued in a letter to this paper on Tuesday that a single identifiable leader who people recognise and trust is the best way of engaging the voters. The hierarchy-lite tendency, who responded in the letters page on Thursday, believe equally passionately in the empowerm...

Interesting front page on yesterday's Norwich EVENING NEWS . Ward Councillor Roy Blower blowing his top against the appalling 'government' decision to sell off the Blackdale School playing fields. Funny thing was, you could read the whole article, and be forgiven for assuming that Cllr. Blower had nothing to do with the government... He didn't seem to want to show any awareness that it is HIS Party, HIS government that has sold off the playing fields -- and so so many more playing fields, all over the country... The Green Party meanwhile successfully defended the Hewett School playing fields in our Town Close ward. There is one Party to trust at local and national level to stand firm against any loss of vital green spaces for our young people and for our environment... and its name doesn't begin with an 'L'...

from Labourhome website: "While it's perhaps a bit rude to intrude upon a private grief, I would like to make a couple of points. Firstly, I think Britain needs a Green Party and I think it needs one that can win seats on councils and at the European and devolved administration levels. We need one because the issues that the party focusses on are really important and mainstream parties need to grapple with them and offer convincing solutions. To be taken seriously, I do think the Greens should have a leader and I quite like the idea of that leader having to seek re-election every two years as is proposed. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2205773,00.html Link to timely letter printed in today's _Guardian_... [Yes, I know that I am posting an awful lot on Green Leadership at the moment -- but these are the crucial days. Pretty soon, it [the referendum campaign] will all be over!]

From the Guardian Unlimited, 5 Nov. 07: 'A poll released today by the Yes campaign shows that five out of six voters believe the Green party should replace its "male and female principal speakers" with a leader. The party's fortunes are on the rise, with a higher tally of seats following this spring's local elections, and many within the party believe it is being held back because it lacks an identifiable face. The YouGov poll of more than 2,000 adults shows that, of the two-thirds of respondents expressing an opinion, 84% believed the party should have a single leader and 16% disagreed. The Yes campaign argues that shows the change would improve its electoral fortunes. Caroline Lucas, Green MEP, said: "It's about how we communicate more effectively with the public; our current structures are confusing. People relate to other people and I think it would be easier to get our ideas across if we had a figure the public was more familiar with an...

In answer, check out this remark, from a Lib Dem commenting on PoliticalBetting.com , last week: "I wouldn’t like to fight a GE leaderless, I think that would lead to slaughter, and that a “permanent leaderless” state, as in the Green Party, does lose support."

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/darren_johnson/2007/11/lets_follow_a_leader.html Check out Darren Johnson in the _Guardian_, on the leadership issue.

If we had 500 years, maybe we could afford to move at the currentpainfully-slow pace of political evolution. But we don’t have 500 years – we don’t even have 50. We must effect huge policy changes within the next decade. So for green politicians just being different just ain’t good enough – we need to make a difference. A very big difference – and fast. Global over-heat is a different sort of crisis – because its climax is in the future. Decisions now may create a better future -- but the full effects of those decisions, good or bad, won’t be known for a long time. A measure of our success will precisely be that people never knew quite how terrifying -- how devastated -- things could become. It’s a no-brainer that, in this situation, the Green Party is needed more than ever. We need to give people personal confidence that, as we all play our part in the big changes required to prevent climate catastrophe, and as the government regulates to make that possible, our lives will improve in ...

An important quote from one of today's fairly big news stories: "As leadership nominations closed yesterday evening with just two hats in the ring, it emerged the party had signed up around 2000 new members since Sir Menzies Campbell quit just more than a fortnight ago. At least 64,000 members will receive ballot papers when they are sent out on November 21, although the party is expecting numbers to swell further as the leadership contest gathers pace. The new leader will be announced the week before Christmas." http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1800957.0.0.php Please, Green Party people: do reflect on this. What wouldn't we give, for 2000+ new members!!