Here’s something you won’t see often on this blog - a post on defence policy. I’m not convinced that Trident replacement is quite what we should spend millions of pounds on, so I’m disappointed (though not surprised) that the vote passed this evening. But, I was really pleased to see my MP, Andrew Smith, voted against it - a principled decision from an MP who doesn’t take rebelling lightly. From tomorrow’s Oxford Mail:

One of the Labour rebels, Oxford East MP Andrew Smith, said he had “always loathed” nuclear weapons.
He said the estimated £20bn cost of the project would be better spent tackling climate change, improving schools and hospitals and ensuring conventional troops were better equipped.

Update: Phillip Cowley on the rebels here, including a full list of who rebelled.

No-one, whatever their politics, can fail to be moved at the suffering of people in northern Israel and southern Lebanon at the moment. I support the right of Israel to exist, and with a heavy heart, Israel’s right to defend itself. I want the current conflict over as soon as possible - and there’s one quick way for that to happen: Hezbollah should release the Israeli soldiers it has captured.

With the Stop the War coalition’s record on supporting an end to hostilities, I knew I wouldn’t be travelling to their demo yesterday. Even so, I was shocked to hear that George Galloway said “I am here to glorify the resistance, Hezbollah.” But if that was the tone of the protest, then maybe the BBC’s subtitles people got it right:

I don’t want to host a discussion about the local elections in general, and those in Oxford in particular, but I thought I’d just post a link to the new Oxford Labour website, created by Jo. There’s plenty on there, including our manifesto for the city and a note about each of our candidates.

The last week has been mainly about pounding the streets, as you’d expect. Ten days to go.

I have very little time for this internet thing at the moment (and what time I have I feel like I should be doing something else with), but I happened to notice that a lot of people have got very excited about something called the Euston Manifesto. There was even mention of it in the Guardian and the New Statesman. Doubtless if I were to go to technorati and plug it in, there would be hundreds of posts.

Couple of things spring to mind, in no particular order. Why are most of the founders and signers men? Why is it the same bunch (many of whom I have met and like) operating under a variety of different names? (But then, unlike when they launched www.stopkensracism.com and every time they publish another copy of that blasted Democratia (there’s supposed to be a Y in there somewhere, but I don’t know where) I have yet to receive fifteen or seventeen emails in a bunch from the same address, so I should be better disposed to this Euston thing).

On a political point, I’ve read the document, and agree with most of it in a broad “well that seems sensible”-sort of way, but it is of course far more noticeable what is left out than what is in. I’m confused about how supposed lefties can write a new manifesto for the left with barely a mention of poverty and seemingly no awareness of class and the affect that has on what you can expect from life. The new dividing line is about where you stand on dictatorship, eh? Well, no; it’s where it always was, unfortunately.

Reading the comment from Justin below, which asks:

So you didn’t fancy posting on Tony’s attempt to introduce periods of internment that would have appealed to Henrik Verwoerd?

I began to think about which thoughts do and which don’t get turned into blog posts.

At about the same time, Tim Worstall’s britblog round-up appeared in my RSS feed reader, and directed me to a post by a guy called Duncan about the preoccupations of the blogosphere, and the way that both the 90 days’ detention proposal and the ID cards proposal were/are opposed by vast majorities of bloggers, whilst gaining the support of the majority of the voting public.

At this point, I’ll be clear: despite my Labour membership, I wasn’t happy about the plan for 90 days’ detention, and at best I’m agnostic on ID cards. But I’m not going to write about them, because frankly, I find them boring. That’s not to say that they’re not important, or that I don’t give a shit, just that if you want to talk about the war / Iraq / terrorism / ID cards / security, and for that matter, Europe / PR / voting reform, go and find some other blogger.

On a related note, considering the list of exclusions I have made and also my favoured topics, you would think that I would have blogged about Sue Axom’s ridiculous challenge to the right of young people to receive confidential advice about and referrals for contraceptive and abortion services. Sorry I haven’t: Philobiblion says pretty much everything that I would have done.

I would only add:

1. This challenge isn’t about parents’ rights, it’s a Trojan horse to reduce all women’s rights to choose. We know from the States that the way to reduce the practical right to choose whilst theoretically still keeping it legal is to chip slowly away at the edges - parental notification, spousal notification, pressure to allow professionals to opt out of provision but not to have to refer on, reducing time limits, enforcing “counselling” before abortion - and that’s exactly the tactic at play here.

2. That her daughter is pregnant only adds to the drama. I’m sorry for the young woman herself, who as she became pregnant after her mother began the challenge clearly has no right to choose at all, and furious with the mother, who has made her daughter’s sex life open season.

This post is an interesting take on the debate. Thanks Tom for pointing me to it.

So it seems that the unite against terror statement has provoked a little discussion in the blogging community. It’s definitely worth reading the discussions at Jo’s and at Perfect, both the original and subsequent posts.

I find it all very interesting. On the one hand, I feel uncomfortable at the outright pro-war-ishness of some of the views of those who signed the statement. On the other, I feel outright frustration at the visceral anti-Labourism of some of those critical of UAT.

I’m still a member of the Labour party. It’s not easy, after the war, after everything, still being Labour. But I’m certain that the only way to create that equal, democratic, even socialist society which is our aim is through the Labour party.

But to do that means re-engaging not just the working class who feel that Labour doesn’t care about their issues anymore*, but also anti-war people who’ve given up on us as an engine for socialist change. I’m not advocating fighting every seat in the land, treating Muswell Hill as of much importance as Hackney – on the contrary, having fought OxWAb in May, I don’t think Labour candidates should do much more in non-heartland seats than turn up and smile. I am advocating a critical dialogue with non-organised (by which I mean not those in another fringe party) socialists outside Labour. I had hoped that LFIQ could do that, bringing together lefties inside and outside the party in a spirit of solidarity with the emerging Iraqi trade union movement, but maybe I’m wrong.

* NB - that “not just” might make you think that I think re-engaging the working class is an easy or a less important task – it’s not either of these things. Although we’ve had some great results recently in places like Becontree and Northfield Brook, where the Labour message was less about immigrants and more about quality of life, ending anti-social behaviour and improving housing and facilities, we’ve by no means cracked that one yet either. (Although I’m not going to say that just yet to the Oxford Labour campaign team, whose euphoria last night was so great that I really think we might soon see t-shirts emblazoned “were you up for Northfield Brook?”!)

UPDATE: Tim Worstall has pointed me towards this post by a guy going by the name of Lenin about the statement. Never calm, it rises in tempo to this disgraceful point:

I’m afraid I haven’t gone far enough. The Palestinians are right to fight the Israelis, and I support their being armed with the tanks and helicopters that their opponents have. The Iraqi resistance is right to fight the occupiers, and I support attacks on UK & US troops. The resistance in Chechnya is right to fight the Russians, and I support attacks on the Russian army. I am a supporter – nay, glorifier – of terrorism. Potentially, under new legislation, I could be locked up or deported – if only my skin were brown and my face bearded.

Over at Normblog, Alan Johnson of Labour Friends of Iraq after having a justified rant about apologists for the London bombers, asks a number of interesting questions.

He’s talking to “the community of bloggers that cluster around HP / Engage / normblog / Labour Friends of Iraq“, and I’d count myself as one of those, admittedly usually a rather silent one.

So far, so good: I’ve signed the Unite Aginst Terror statement, I’m a member of LFIQ, I’ve earned my spears in battle with the SWPers and shouted at the radio when some idiot blames Israel; this is making me angry with the apologists, but not challenging me so far.

Then something happens that makes me a bit queasy:

“Now, with words that will lose me my last remaining friends, I guess, let me say this. I agree with every word of Blair’s speech. It’s a bloody marvellous speech. Just what needed to be said. I could hardly say much else, could I?”

Maybe it’s brave for an anti-war Labour member like Alan to admit to this; certainly it’s not fashionable. I hope that I’m not as closed-minded as to dismiss anything that TB says because it’s him saying it. I certainly believe that by staying an active member of the Labour party and putting myself up as a candidate for that party, I have demonstrated that I’ll run with what Labour do right (which they do the vast majority of the time), and make clear my objection when they go wrong. (And just because he may be right on this, doesn’t mean that I’ve forgiven him for Iraq, or, for that matter, for privatisation, a rightwing immigration agenda and selling off council housing.)

But I question the use of Unite against Terror if it is to become a cheerleading squad for government policy. I got involved with LFIQ precisely because it offered another way for those of us who opposed the war, but don’t believe that pulling out of Iraq right now does any service to those struggling for democracy there - if you like, a middle ground between pro-Islamists and uncritical cheerleaders for Bush and Blair.

I’m lucky enough to have a great bunch of real-world friends to argue these issues through with, Dan, Jo and Tamanou, and what I’m saying is unashamedly influenced by them, particularly by this post at Trees for Labour.

I don’t think that it is apologising for the terrorists to say clearly that I do think that the war in Iraq contributed to a situation where the events of the 7th become a possibility, in that the mobilisation against the war played a part in radicalising young Muslims. The blame for the tragedy undoubtedly lies with the bombers and those who trained, equipped and encouraged them.

So, what were these questions? They’re here in full, and certainly the answer to many of them must surely be because we spend too much time talking to each other and not enough time talking to people whose views we might sway but who at the moment are just getting their opinions unchallenged from the large variety of apologist mouthpieces. The most interesting question is this:

• Why has the Labour Party stopped doing politics? If it’s because the party goes to sleep in government, well, listen up… It’s. Not. The. Normal. One. Term. Deal. Loosen up. Speak out, give interviews, write columns, organise vigils. Wake Up!

Firstly, I think you’re doing the party members a slight disservice. As a student, finding out about politics, I was involved in campaigns about student funding, against our local asylum detention centre, for LGB and women’s rights. I joined the Labour party because in each of those campaigns, the people who were most active and who I was most inspired by were Labour party members.

And that’s still the case - in Oxford at least, which is where I know best. Labour members propping up the credit union and the Close Campsfield Campaign and the local trades council and 1001 other local campaigns and committees. Yes, we’ve forgotten how to campaign as a party except around elections, but we created that party by our desire to win those elections. We told ourselves that “discipline” and “restraint” and “loyalty” and accepting leaders and policies that weren’t quite good enough, well, those were sacrifices that were worth making. Which another reason why the adulation of TB seems odd to me, because he’s the architect of that emasculation of local CLPs, and a policy that seeks to re-engage members with reasoned political debate and the struggle for democracy needs to reach out to those very people that some pro-war leftists profess to despise - the members and no-longer members who are still furious with TB.

So I guess I’ve come full circle. Is praise of TB the right tactic to win the support of those we need to? And politically, given the diversity of views on other issues, not least the war, from which LFIQ members come, is it right? And when, in all the criticism then praise of TB and the praise then criticism of Ken, are we going to realise there is no wonderful leader on a white charger who will show us the way? That it’s always going to be up to us?

Okay, so having got that off my chest, now I’d better get out for the evening shift for today’s bye-election.

So what happens when on the one hand the UK and US are trying (imperfectly, but they are trying) to promote autonomy and democracy for the people of Iraq, and on the other, said autonomy and democracy leads to things like this?

A working draft of Iraq’s new constitution would cede a strong role to Islamic law and could sharply curb women’s rights, particularly in personal matters like divorce and family inheritance.
The document’s writers are also debating whether to drop or phase out a measure enshrined in the interim constitution, co-written last year by the Americans, requiring that women make up at least a quarter of the parliament.
The draft of a chapter of the new constitution obtained by The New York Times on Tuesday guarantees equal rights for women as long as those rights do not “violate Shariah,” or Koranic law.

Recently, our local SWP accused me of using women’s rights as a figleaf for supporting Bush and Blair against the supposedly anti-imperialist “resistance”; I guess now it’s even more important to support the women’s movement and trade union movement in Iraq.

Eric at drink-soaked trots for war says that we should be boycotting the Guardian because of the unusual and distinctly unpleasant views of one of its trainees. I get your point, Eric, but what are us underpaid overworked non-profit employees supposed to do without Wednesday’s tonic of vacancy pornography? Can I just buy it once a week for that? Well, I suppose the Oxford Mail has all the news I really need…

Meanwhile, on Today, Bernard Crick says “these kinds of protests have been going on since the failure of Israel to follow the United Nations resolutions after the 1967 war…it is nonsense when the government denies that there is a political as well as a perverted religious dimension.” So London was a protest, was it? At least it’s a comfort to know that we can just blame Israel.

I’ve signed the statement. Have you?