Being someone who is immersed in politics, I naturally have good friends in most parties across the political spectrum, and when it comes to matters such as this, they all seem—much as I am—firm in their convictions on renewables and energy policy, with the general consensus being that it isn’t enough and we need to develop nuclear and strengthen links to oil and gas producing regions (ie. Russia). Of course, greens can come up with a dozen arguments as to why this is the wrong approach, but seeing as we like to believe our views are firmly rooted in fact and the rigours of science, what possesses those of other political colours to hold firm to the views they advocate? More importantly, what does this mean for the chances of being able to tackle energy supply and demand issues, and of course, climate change? Unfortunately this question was a little too off topic for me to ask in the Q&A session at the end of his lecture, but it’d be interesting to hear if anyone has any thoughts on the matter.

Any level of government that has these capacities to observe must remember that there needs to be an element of trust between people and their government. Sure, bad people can take advantage of the space that the element of trust gives to do bad things; this is simply something that has to be put up with though. In the case of the woman in the article, there are myriad possibilities to investigate whether she was breaching rules on school admission that wouldn’t have involved a report with the words, “target vehicle”. There is a time and a place for surveillance, but it must be limited, obvious, and most importantly, it must allow for a private space, beyond the reaches of most of the state. Without it, we may have better security and fewer crimes, but we will lose more than we gain.

The problem is that, while we politicos like to think that any sane, decent, and moderate person finds the views of the BNP and the PVV vile and disgusting, the truth is that the people who are being targeted by these parties, and who form their electoral base, are not tuned into politics on the same frequency as the mondeo-man voter that Blair, Brown, Cameron, and Clegg, not to mention the leaders of the major parties here in the Netherlands, and across most of Europe, have identified as their ideal voter.

Most of the people who vote for the BNP and PVV are not racist. Some are, but most aren’t. They’re simply in communities that are ignored by most other parties (including, to an extent, my own party, with it’s ultra-middle-class culture), but which get attention from this different party that says it is full of decent, down to earth people; people who are like them. The BNP uses the easiest and most effective campaign tactics: playing on fears, having its candidates act as shadow-councillors before the election. With the anti-politics feeling that is present throughout Britain, it is only natural that these tactics work, and produce councillors and MEPs.

Instead of physically fighting the BNP—seriously guys, do we have to side with a bunch of angry-young-men?—we should be actively participating in the communities that we have neglected for too long. It shouldn’t be a case of sending missionary politicos into the communities either; Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberals, and of course, the Greens should truly be a part of, and stand up for, all communities, not just those which statistical software tells them will gain them the most votes.

I’m sorry, but at what point did private persons gain the right to block the press from reporting the proceedings of our Parliament?!

One of the jobs of the press is to be the conduit between the people, politics, and society; it should be free to report the public activities of our elected representatives, and it should be free to hold them, and powerful persons and organisations to account for their actions. What the lawyers for Trafigura have done here is break that function.

So, let’s help out the good old Guardian by saying, loudly, what they cannot say. Head over to Twitter and retweet the parliamentary question, spread links to the story, and write about it on your own blogs.

Klaus cannot be serious! After the struggle to get every member state to ratify Lisbon, with just Poland (though it seems like it is soon to ratify) and the Czech Republic still to do so, and with his own Parliament supporting ratification, he has the gall to suggest an amendment that might require another ratification round!

This can be nothing but obstruction for obstruction’s sake; even if there was some substance to his request for a footnote, it’s unlikely to be compatible with the spirit of the Treaty. All I can see from the European Voice and BBC articles on this is that Klaus wants something vague on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which in his political context likely means a weakening of it—and yes, I know the UK has an opt-out on the Charter, which I disagree with, but at least we negotiated it at the right time, and in the right way.

So, what are the chances of full ratification before the Tories figure out a way to withdraw the British ratification?

Image by Bertelsmann Stiftung on Flickr, used under a Creative Commons licence.

Anyway, what I did want to briefly post about tonight is related to Lisbon: specifically, the presidency of the EU. I keep hearing a lot about how ratification of Lisbon will open the door for Tony Blair to become the first new-style President. Now I can’t imagine he’d turn down the job, but the feeling I’m getting from people I’ve talked to about this, and media I’ve read about it, suggests that he’s not really the shoe-in that the British press claim. Anyone have any ideas?

“We’re making it clear that we are completely equidistant between Labour and the Conservatives”

Vince Cable, Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesperson on ‘The World This Weekend’, BBC Radio 4, 20th of September

Seriously, what is the point of the Lib Dems? I know lots of people are asking the same question at the moment, driving it to become a cliché, but it’s a question I have to ask. I’m not basing this question on the assumption that British politics should be a two-party affair, but since it is, there seems to be no point at all in having the Lib Dems as they currently stand.

I should declare before I go on that I’m sympathetic to liberalism; it’s my political background and where I would be if environmentalism didn’t exist, so I want the Liberal Democrats to be a decent party at the UK level, and I’d love to have a proper liberal government (lets face it, the Greens aren’t going to be able to form a government in Britain for a long time, if ever*). So it pains me to hear statements from senior Lib Dems such as the one at the head of this post.

Just as I think Labour needs to rethink what it really is, so I think the Lib Dems need to forget about trying to maintain an equidistant position between the other parties, practicing the worst campaign tactics imaginable, and selling their souls for power at every opportunity, and come up with a proper sense of liberalism, domestically and internationally, that can be applied through a coherent set of policies to tackle the problems that we face, from climate change to the financial crisis and everything in between. Carrying on as they are now can only help the mediocrity of British politics.

Seriously though, if you move somewhere because of a desire to live in that particular place, then it’s likely that you’ll try to integrate a bit, but moving somewhere because it is the place you have to be to do what you do, especially when what you do is international politics, is never going to encourage you to integrate. Brussels just happens to be where the EU is.

As an aside, this post may, or may not be the first in a series of ‘useless X of the week’ posts. It depends how much I can be bothered.