Say Goodbye To ID Cards

From the website of the Home Office Identity & Passport Service (surely facing an imminent name-change):

Both Parties that now form the new Government stated in their manifestos that they will cancel Identity Cards and the National Identity Register. We will announce in due course how this will be achieved. Applications can continue to be made for ID cards but we would advise anyone thinking of applying to wait for further announcements.

Until Parliament agrees otherwise, identity cards remain valid and as such can still be used as an identity document and for travel within Europe. We will update you with further information as soon as we have it.

Some Other Things That Never Change

So some of the new ConDem cabinet has been announced:

Percentage of ethnic minorities in the neighbourhood where I live: 64%
Percentage of ethnic minorities in the new ConDem cabinet: 0%

Percentage of women working in my office: 62.5% (including the boss)
Percentage of women in the new ConDem cabinet: 10%
(and that's Theresa May, for God's sake!))

Just saying...

Democracy On Trial - Tomorrow Evening

Unfortunately, I am still in far too much constant pain from my cycle accident to travel and so won't be able to make tomorrow's Democracy on Trial event at the Resistance Gallery in Bethnal Green. It's a shame as I also missed the last event by Join the Mutiny back in February and I was keen to throw my tuppennys-worth into this particular debate.

Resistance Gallery is at 265 Poyser St, London, E2 9RF [map] and the event starts at 6pm. More info on Facebook here.

So please - somebody let me know how it goes!

Wait To You See The Whites Of Their Eyes

For five days there has been no government and the endless speculation in the media about negotiations for a coalition government has reached the level where, in the absence of any real developments, journalists and spin doctors are almost trading blows.

But as I start writing this, the TV is showing aerial footage of Gordon Brown on his way to Buckingham Palace to resign as Prime Minister, the general election of 2010 is finally over and we know we'll soon be facing up to a 'ConDem' enemy - either a formal coalition or a marriage of convenience.

With the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives combining to launch an unprecedented reduction in public spending, I guess the last vestiges of 'Cleggmania' are over too - and all those (like the leader writers at the Guardian) who supported the Lib Dems as a way to keep the Tories out must be feeling bloody foolish and severely betrayed tonight.

Meanwhile, having desperately tried to cling on in the hope that it could chaperone a number of smaller parties into a Lib-Lab "progressive alliance", Labour seems to have already forgotten that it was the biggest loser in the election. Some of its supporters seem to believe that a ConDem coalition is some kind of "electoral gift" and that all the party has to do is ditch Brown, choose a new leader and await a revival at a second election this year, when Labour will be presented with its opportunity to implement its own period of intense hardship at a slightly different pace.

Personally I think that if the party, having given us war in Iraq, timidity in reining in the banks after they were bailed out and repeated attacks on civil liberties, thinks it will naturally reclaim the support of the bloody foolish and the severely betrayed without making changes it is simply unwilling to make, it is severely deluding itself. Nor do I think a ConDem coalition will collapse as quickly as Labour supporters might expect (for this reason if no other).

Whilst New Labour tries to work out whether David Miliband or Ed Balls (God help us) is the most like Blair, what it won't be doing is what you might expect an opposition to do - actively opposing the cuts themselves. If it comes at all, that kind of opposition will come from outside Parliament. There are no guarantees and an alternative won't appear out of nowhere - to quote from one notable Italian, it will take "organisation, organisation and more organisation". That's why I've argued that concentrating so much energy on the election itself is rather less important than the aftermath we now face.

Whether the left of Labour manages to avoid getting sidetracked by the party's internal blood-letting and plays a significant role in a genuine alternative to the new age of austerity remains to be seen. On one level, it will of course be fun to see left-wing MPs making all those government-supporting backbench MPs squirm by calling for a debate on Trident, a policy the Lib Dems fought the election on. My blogging comrade Harpymarx believes that a leadership challenge by the MP John McDonnell "can open up political room for the left to put forward its ideas", although I remain to be convinced - but I completely agree that we need "a clear ideological account of what the left is and how to fight neoliberalism".

I've had a initial stab at suggesting a vague course of action for working out how we might try and make that happen, but we all know how sectarian and disorganised the left can be. Now that we've at last seen the whites of our new enemy's eyes, I really hope things are different this time. For once, another failure really is too terrible to contemplate.

We Need An Alternative

My contribution to series of articles by the New Left Project on the aftermath of the election

The moment that I realised that yet again I would be unable to join in, herd-like, with something that people were saying was vital and urgent was when I heard the roar of approval for Nick Clegg. I’m talking, of course, about the ‘purple revolt’ of Take Back Parliament, the coalition protesting outside of the Liberal Democrat headquarters on Saturday.

More here

Satellite Image of Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

These satellite images are from NASA’s Terra satellite. More are available here.


The environmental disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico is predicted to become worse than the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989. But according to Amnesty International, the same amount of oil is spilt every year in the Niger Delta – which is "one of the ten most important wetland and coastal marine ecosystems in the world".

This has a direct impact on people's homes, their water supply and food sources and the clean up is completely inadequate. The oil company with the most responsible also promotes its strong ethical business principles – Royal Dutch Shell.

From the Shell website:

Contributing to sustainable development is integral to the way we do business and influences our choice of products and portfolio. As we work to help meet the world’s growing energy needs, we aim to bring benefits to local communities and reduce the impact of our operations.

Amnesty is targeting Shell's AGM next Tuesday - for more information, visit their website.

UPDATE- 18 May

The Press Gazette reports that the Financial Times has refused to run Amnesty's advert, although it has appeared in London's freesheets, the Metro and the Evening Standard. A representative for the FT is quoted as saying:

"Editorially the FT was more than willing to run the advertisement for Amnesty. Unfortunately, whilst Amnesty gave us written assurances that they would take full responsibility for the comments and opinions stated in the advertisement, it became apparent that Amnesty's lawyers had not had a proper opportunity to advise Amnesty on those opinions. As a result, from a legal perspective we were unable to rely on Amnesty's assurances."

No, I have no idea what that means either. But I'm sure that concerns about the sensibilities of the FT's corporate customers had nothing to do with the decision.

Where Next For 'Parking Bay Gate'?

Now that Newham's imperious Mayor has secured a comfortable win and there is an absolute majority for Labour on the council, it will be interesting to see whether Sir Robin Wales - a man notorious for his political vengefulness - will pursue threatened legal action against mayoral opponent Alan Craig over campaign material issued during the election.

The row centres on a advert by the Christian People's Alliance (right), which alleges that a parking space reserved for disabled drivers had been designated for the Mayor because it was closest to the lifts and stairs to the offices in the council's new building, Newham Dockside. The photo used in the advert seems to back up this claim and the issue has been presented as a metaphor for the way that Sir Robin Wales runs the council.

Alan Craig reported on his blog on 26 April that the Mayor had instructed his solicitors to issue a threat of legal action. A letter to the Christian People's Alliance (CPA) said, “it will be understood by those reading (the leaflet) that the Mayor has put his own interests above those of disabled drivers and (it) makes derogatory comments on the Mayor’s motives and values... (It) will undoubtedly cause serious and ongoing damage to the Mayor’s reputation, feelings and chances of re-election.”

The letter went on to make eleven demands, including the disclosure of all the names and addresses that CPA leaflets had been distributed to, the publication of a full apology, the payment of the Mayor's legal expenses and the donation of £5,000 to a charity of his choice.

In the Newham Recorder on 28 April, the Mayor denied any involvement in re-designating the parking bay and added:

"I am offended by this allegation. A lot of claims are made in politics and you have to develop a thick skin. However, the Alliance leaflet is beyond the pale and untrue. They are playing politics with disability and that is shameful."

Craig rightly points out, however, that the advert had also been included in a council booklet sent to every voter in Newham and had therefore been approved by the council’s Chief Executive, Returning Officer and Head of Legal Services. Approval is not automatic - over in Hackney, Conservative candidate Andrew Boff is hopping mad that his election address was excluded from the borough's mayoral booklet because of his reference to the salaries of Hackney's mayor and cabinet.

Had Alan Craig been elected, I suspect that Newham Labour would have gleefully reported him to the Standards Board for a breach of the code of conduct on treating others with respect. However, the CPA lost all its council seats on 6 May and that opportunity for revenge is unavailable.

Perhaps the wipe-out of the CPA will seem like punishment enough - but I wouldn't put it past the Great Helmsman to vindictively continue with legal action if his demand for the repayment of his legal fees and a public apology are not forthcoming.

POSTSCRIPT:

Private Eye reports that mayoral candidate Andrew Boff called Hackney council himself, after hearing that the voters who phoned the to check whether he was standing were told, wrongly, that he was not.

Without giving his name, Boff recorded a conversation with an unnamed council worker who clearly said – after checking with the council’s elections office – that "He’s not [a candidate] because he didn’t submit valid paperwork on time".

Now the council has threatened legal action against community newspaper the Hackney Citizen for including an audioclip of this conversation on its website. You can listen to the recording here.

Nick Clegg Offered For Sale On eBay

How very appropriate - Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has been offered for sale on eBay:

You are bidding for the affections of this man, a Spanish speaking manufacturer and creator of kings. Yes, if you need a king swiftly fabricated, then this is your man! May be interested in part exchange for electoral reform and break-up of financial institutions, WHY - cash either way.

No "buy-it-now" price but make him an offer and he'll do you a deal!

May be of use to those with an interest in running the country.

Cash on collection.

Those with less than 220 seats, contact me first before bidding. Advertised due to nation of timewasters. Please do not bid if you cannot make up your mind.

Anyone seeking to cobble together a coalition government - or a desire to make the orange Tory Boy their gimp - has until 14 May to make a bid.

UPDATE

NICK CLEGG HAS SOLD OUT! - or, rather, eBay has removed the listing.

Newham Council - Where Has the Money Gone (Part 2)?

A follow-up to my earlier blog post on Newham council's issues with transparency - this time over considerable funding it has received from central government for 'Preventing Violent Extremism' (PVE).

PVE is part of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, known as CONTEST. It is supposedly community-based and intended to challenge the ideology behind violent extremism, primarily in areas with large numbers of Muslims. It is also extremely controversial - accusations that it has been used to spy on Muslim communities have, to give the most generous interpretation possible, hampered its effectiveness. Others (myself included) see it as thoroughly insidious. This controversy was acknowledged in March by the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee.

The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) says that "most Prevent funding is allocated to local authorities through the non-ring-fenced Area Based Grant (ABG). Not ring-fencing the grant gives local authorities the flexibility to decide how best to use it in their areas, and so helps Prevent to be delivered effectively at a local level." It is, however, clearly intended to be used to support specific projects through grant aid.

Like the Migration Impact Fund, nobody I know in Newham has the slightest idea how he money is allocated, so in February I submitted the following FoIA request:

Please could you confirm the amount of funding that the London Borough of Newham has received under the government's Prevent strategy for Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) in each year to date since the Pathfinder programme in 2007-2008 and provide:

• A copy of LB Newham's current strategy document for delivering the
• Prevent strategy locally
• A copy of the allocated budget for PVE spending in 2009-2010
• A copy of the proposed budget for 2010-11
• Membership of the PVE steering group
  
  

The answer, once again, was classic Newham. The council confirmed the names of the 17 people on the Preventing Violent Extremism Delivery Group and that the breakdown of government funding allocated to the London Borough of Newham was as follows:

• 2007/8 allocation Violent Extremism Pathfinder Fund, £30,000
• 2008/9 allocation, Area Based Grant allocation to Preventing Violent Extremism, £325,000
• 2009/10 allocation, Area Based Grant allocation to Preventing Violent Extremism, £400,000, a subsequent additional allocation of £18,292 was received from Department for Communities and Local Government.
• 2010/11 allocation, Area Based Grant allocation to Preventing Violent Extremism, £473,000, a subsequent additional allocation of £62,830 was received from Department for Communities and Local Government.

That's a total of £1,309,122 since 2007 - a lot of money. More than three quarters of a million pounds of that money was allocated for the period since April 2009. However, the council said it was unable to provide budget allocations for the current and next financial year because Newham's action plan (which deals with these issues) was "undergoing review and change".

Whilst it may not have been possible in February to provide a copy of the budget for 2010/11, there should have been no reason not to provide - eleven months into the financial year - a copy of the allocated budget PVE spending in 2009-2010.

As I have said in my appeal, I would expect, particular because PVE funding is intended to be used to support specific projects through grant aid, to see a breakdown in detail of expenditure on PVE supported projects, including information on salary costs, publicity or other budgeted items. Instead, the review of the action plan has been used as a reason for providing no budgetary information at all. So where has the money gone?

So I’m no nearer to understanding how the council intends to "work closely with groups who are actively working to challenge violent extremism” – just like the £97,000 that Newham council received from the Migration Impact Fund, if anyone can offer any more revealing information, I would be very grateful.

The full response from Newham council is available on the What Do They Know website

Electoral Opposition Wiped Out In Newham

So Newham council has returned to the one-party mini-state that existed before 2006.

Four years ago there were three Respect councillors elected in Green Street West (two of whom subsequently flipped to Labour) and three Christian People's Alliance councillors in Canning Town South. This is how these opposition parties fared on Thursday:

GREEN STREET WEST

Labour
Rustam Hasan Talati - 3,172
Harvinder Singh Virdee - 3,004
Mukesh Patel - 3,181

Respect
Ashfaq Ahmed - 1,362
Abdul Karim Sheikh - 1,189
Sabia Begum Kamali - 1,286

CANNING TOWN SOUTH

Labour
Bryan Collier - 2,263
Michael Arthur Nicholas - 2,028
Alan Taylor - 2,074

Christian Peoples Alliance
Alan Craig - 1,399
Denise Stafford - 1,004
Hamilton Amachree - 892

In other words, both opposition parties lost convincingly in the two wards where they had previously been strongest. There is no point in either of them pretending otherwise.

So what happens now? I suspect that far as Labour is concerned, citizens' involvement in local politics came to an end with the conclusion of yesterday's count and the absolute majority that comes with winning around 30% of the electorate in each council ward. Now they would prefer that local people attended the events held periodically in the local parks and kept their months shut. I also suspect that the chances of the council's internal 'scrutiny' process functioning with any greater vigour than we've seen since 2006 has further diminished (it has been useless anyway, even with a tiny opposition).

But whilst the Great Helmsman will probably be insufferably smug over the next couple of weeks, it's not as though we didn't have an elected dictatorship before. The real difference, as we saw when Labour last held every council seat, is that without an outside enemy to plot against and outdo, councillors start faction-fighting internally.

When will the battle to decide the Dear Leader's successor start? Who knows - it's like trying to keep up with the succession plans in North Korea. I'm not even sure that the rumours saying directly-elected mayors are limited to three terms of office and that the Eternal Mayor must stand aside in 2014 are even true.

But for any observer of Planet Newham, it should definitely be intriguing to watch.

POSTSCRIPT

It is obviously fantastic news that the BNP have been so comprehensively defeated in Barking & Dagenham. But who knew there were 1,089 people in the West Ham parliamentary seat prepared to vote for old school fascists like Michael Davidson of the National Front?