Blog

Frankly, it has been a bit of a surreal evening.

I am tremendously grateful to have been elected as Mayor of Huntingdon at this evening’s Town Council, along with Cllr Audrey McAdam as Deputy Mayor. I am a little bit of a loss for words at the moment, as things are only now starting to sink in. I know that there is a great deal of work in the coming year, though, and I look forward to doing my best for our town.I feel like I have more thankyous than I can count – to fellow councillors for supporting me, to my friends and family for coming, to all the people who wished me well this evening and offered their help and support, and to all the Town Council staff for making this the most amazing evening.

Below is a copy of my remarks on being elected.

“The document in front of me says that I now have the opportunity to make a short speech. You will be glad to know that the word ‘short’ is in bold.I would like to start by thanking the members of this Council who have elected me as Mayor.

As my first act as Mayor, I wish to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Councillor Karl Webb. I’m sure most people here, if not all, will know Karl and all he has done for Huntingdon, both before and during his mayoralty.In addition to the usual duties of the mayor, he has also, of course, led the council through the very difficult period of covid, with all the challenges that has posed, with poise and with aplomb, while still supporting new councillors, myself included, to give their best.

Karl, thankyou.

I would also like to thank all the staff of Huntingdon Town council, both here in the Town Hall and across Huntingdon, for going above and beyond on so many occasions to make sure we kept providing services to the people of Huntingdon, despite the unprecedented challenges they faced during covid.

In particular, I would like to thank our remarkable town clerk, Mr Philip Peacock. Not only did he keep the show on the road during Covid, he also oversaw, amongst much besides, the completion of the new Crematorium. The Crematorium is the first such facility in the UK to be purpose built and environmentally friendly. This is a remarkable achievement that has brought delegations from across the UK and beyond to understand how it was done. We are fortunate to have such a distinguished clerk, whose knowledge and expertise are recognised in his being the president of the Society of Local Council Clerks.

Mr Clerk, my thanks to you, and I would be grateful if you could convey my and, indeed, the whole council’s thanks to your staff.

It is wonderful to be joined here by friends and family – my wife, Alice, my Dad, Graham, and my friends Saul Jeavons and Su Martin. Thankyou all for coming.I am very much aware that I am a new kid on the block, having only joined the council last year. I do know that I will need to rely on the advice of all our councillors, and particularly our former mayors.In that, we are fortunate to have a great breadth of experience on the council – from Juliet Cole’s many years of charitable work, to Phil Pearce’s legal expertise, and that breadth gives us strength. I am looking forward to getting to know Amanda Charmaine Norton and Gerry Sheils, our newly elected councillors, and to seeing faces both familiar and fresh when we fill the three remaining seats on the council in a few weeks.

I say now that my door will always be open – if you think I’ve missed something, if you think I’ve got something wrong, even if you think I’ve got something right – I promise that I will listen and I will hear you.Turning to the future, I would like to highlight some of the things we have coming up. This year marks, of course, the remarkable achievement of HM The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. It is worth remarking that HM was already the 12th longest serving monarch of this country when I was born, forty years ago. Seventy years of service to this country and its people is a remarkable achievement, and it is a particular joy for me that I can serve as mayor in this auspicious year and I look forward to joining with you in the celebrations for the Jubilee next month.

Towards the end of the last council, we resolved to sign the Armed Forces Covenant. I am glad that we have made that commitment, and I intend to make sure that we live up to our commitment.

We all know the importance of maintaining and protecting our environment. Huntingdon Town Council has already done much to make ourselves environmentally friendly, and we have an environmental audit reporting soon that will shape our next steps in playing our part in the global fight against climate change.

While there is much to love and celebrate about Huntingdon, we know that there is also much that must be improved. While there may not be much that is in our direct control, there is much that we can do: to listen, to help, and, above all, to speak up. In the words of Saint Óscar Romero, we who have a voice must be a voice for the voiceless.

At the civic service earlier this year, we heard the parable of the talents and the importance of us all using our gifts in the service of others. It is my sincere hope and firm expectation that all those of us who have the privilege of serving on Huntingdon Town Council will do that in this forthcoming year.

So, I stand here as your Mayor. Proud, more than a little nervous, and ready to do my best for our council and our town. I thank you for the trust you have placed in me. With your help, I hope that I – and we – will have a good year – together.”

An article by Dr. Craig McCann for the Centre for the Analysis of the Radical Right caught my eye and, sadly, not in a good way. CARR is an excellent resource, but I am surprised that they published something like this – not because I object to criticism of anti-fascists[1], but because it’s done in such a ham-fisted way.

The article, as I read it, makes three points. Firstly, activists who describe themselves as anti-fascists are infiltrating the countering violent extremism (CVE) field. Secondly, those activists advocate violence and other criminality and, at least to some extent, this is new. Thirdly, Dr McCann feels he has to challenge the narrative that “the only way to oppose the radical right is by emulating their tactics” because violence is an ineffective way of challenging the far right.

All three points are either mistaken or unsubstantiated. I appreciate that Dr McCann has written a blog post, rather than an academic article, but there needs to be at least some attempt to stand up eyebrow-raising claims. A single person’s view is subject to all the human frailties we know so well; I’m sure Dr. McCann is entirely honest and straightforward in the articulation of his views, and I’m sure that he is highlighting what he thinks is a genuine problem. It may well be that there is a genuine problem. At the end of the article, however, I really don’t have much to tell me whether there is a problem or not.

The first point, as I say above, is that activists who describe themselves as anti-fascists are infiltrating the CVE field. My immediate question is ‘how do you know?’. The suggestion is that there are people who soi-disant anti-fascists joining the field. It strikes me off the bat that it is at least possible that, rather that infiltration, views within the field are changing. If people are infiltrating, that suggests people are joining. How many? How have you counted?

I can perhaps illustrate that with a personal example. Although I have been active in the Labour Party to a greater or lesser extent for two decades, I am not a supporter of Mr. Jeremy Corbyn or many of his policies. Indeed, I saw much of his support within the party as Johnny-come-latelies that advocated positions that were damaging to Labour or were wholly opposed to the values I believe Labour stands for (notably, anti-Semitism). I would, at different times, have said that there were few but vocal supporters of Mr. Corbyn within the party, or that a great many members supported Mr. Corbyn. Being in the middle of things, and without access to polling or somesuch, I couldn’t reach a reliable conclusion.

Polling isn’t straightforward, but the process of undertaking it does help us pin down some of our theoretical positions. When Dr. McCann says that people are infiltrating the CVE field, exactly what does ‘field’ mean? Is that anyone who talks about CVE? People professionally employed in the field? Let us say that, for instance, more people are turning up to academic conferences on CVE and saying silly things. That doesn’t mean there’s a significant change in CVE as discipline or as practice. That is not to say there’s not a change; it’s just not enough to draw the conclusion.

I do agree with Dr. McCann that not everyone who labels themselves as anti-fascist necessarily has a particularly good understanding of the varieties of far right, or that the far right is a different kind of thing from the “regular right” (although there is overlap in many cases).

Secondly, the article says that violence is not an effective way of combatting the far right, and that this has some degree of novelty as it is a phenomenon that has grown of late. I agree with Dr. McCann on the first part. The second part is more complicated. Violence by fascists and militant anti-fascists, or by para-fascists and para-anti-fascists, has waxed and waned together; viz., the Organisation for the Maintenance of Supply and the Workers’ Defence Corps; I Squad and the LLX; the National Front and Red Action; perhaps, the EDL and UAF. While I can certainly believe that a rise in violence opposed to the far right has led to more people in the CVE space advocating the same (although, again, this needs substantiation; it really is not good enough to say ‘lots of my colleagues advocate violence’), this is a longstanding phenomenon. Given that it seems to have some connection to increased far right violence, the explanation may be about how differing groups interact.

I will say here that a single interview on YouTube with, at the time of writing, thirty-eight thousand views, might be an interesting example but it doesn’t do anything to support the claims Dr. McCann makes. You can find almost anything on YouTube.

Early in the article, Dr. McCann says “Their grievances against the status quo run wild and it is often difficult to identify a coherent strand of thinking, other than anger.” This seems intuitively correct to me, at least in the case of the United States, on which I believe he may be focussing. Throughout Dr McCann’s work, there is a laudable call to understand the processes that drive people to the far right. I warrant that the same should be done with the far left. There is a populism of the left as well as of the right; there is a rejection of the liberal state on the left as well as on the right. We should be asking questions along the lines of whether the current economic situation drives people to the extremes, and why some people go to one extreme and some to another.

One of the recurrent errors I think Dr. McCann makes in his article is to use a tweet and its replies, or a YouTube video, as evidence. I don’t see how those represent what is going on in the CVE field. What someone says on Twitter, and how people reply to it, don’t indicate much, at least not without a lot of other work, and can’t be on what we base our positions.

Thirdly, the article looks to challenge “the implied narrative that the only way to oppose the radical right is by emulating their tactics”. I agree with the substance; violence is not the only way, or even an effective way, of opposing the radical right (or far right, or fascists; they’re not all the same thing). It seems likely to me that there are more people advocating that view; I’m really not sure how many of them are in the academy etc. rather than talking on Twitter. As Dr. McCann himself points out, many of these people appear to be performatively advocating violence rather than engaging in; as I suggest above, this is something that warrant study and understanding.

Antifa and anti-fascism are not synonyms. That is a truism, but it illustrates a lot. Equally, not everyone who calls themselves an anti-fascist online actually does anything other than talk, though I recognise that does have an effect. Not everyone who calls themselves an anti-fascist is in the CVE space. I fear that there is confusion of terms that leads to a confusion of ideas.

If I may offer a criticism of CARR[2], this article needed another editing pass. Putting in some references and changing the tone to be less grumpy[3] would have helped make the article sound like less of a rant against woke lefty snowflakes, and more like someone trying to highlight that there may be a developing problem in their field.

None of this is to say that anti-fascism, anti-fascists, or opposition to the far right more broadly gets everything right, is pure of motive, or should be immune from criticism. Where mistakes are made or points missed in an academic discipline, they should be corrected and improved on, and doubly so in a field like CVE that has clear, direct, and immediate public policy implications. I suspect that Dr. McCann is right in saying that there is more advocacy of violence amongst those opposed to the far right; I think there’s a decent chance he’s right that more people in the CVE space are advocating violence, or at least turning a blind eye, than previously. I suspect he is also overstating how big those problems are, and by a great deal in the latter case. Either way, the arguments he makes need substantiation.

Those criticisms need substantiation for the sake of academic rigour. They also need substantiation because there is a discourse, often used in bad faith, that complains, crudely, about woke lefty snowflakes cancelling everything. I’m not for a moment denying the existence of woke lefty snowflakes who want to cancel everything[4], but their existence, influence, and importance are deliberately overstated by actors who want to tarnish anything that looks at fascism, the radical right, and the populist right in order to allow their own illiberal, anti-democratic agendas to flourish.

---

[1] My own thesis, for what it is worth, is on civil society opposition to the far right in Britain, specifically looking at 2005 to 2015. I am quite critical of quite a lot of anti-fascist activity for being either ineffectual and a waste of time and effort or, in some cases, actually counterproductive.

[2] I do this with considerable hesitation, as I’m going to be launching a blog for my workplace soon that, at least to begin with, I’m going to be editing.

[3] I am aware of exactly how hypocritical it is for me to criticise anyone for being grumpy.

[4] In fairness to myself, I only want to cancel most things.

As no election was called to fill the late Cllr. Trish Shrapnel’s seat representing East ward on Huntingdon Town Council, it was filled by co-option and I’m delighted (and frankly surprised) to be able to say that I was co-opted last Thursday evening and, once I’ve completed the relevant paperwork and declarations, will be the new councillor, at least until the elections next May.

I am having a bit of a think about exactly how I want to approach things. Obviously, I want to do as good a job as I can, but there is not much time left in the term. I think one of my priorities is going to have to be to let people know that I am their new representative on Huntingdon Town Council. The obvious way to do that is social media, but I need to work out some rules for myself before I start doing that. I’m going to speak to the Clerk and a couple of other people to work out how to do it in a way that is useful, doesn’t waste time, and doesn’t send my or anyone else’s blood pressure through the roof. Of course, social media has its limits, not least that not everyone has it, so I’ll have to think of something else, too.

I’m going to rework this website, too – this incarnation comes from when I was doing my PhD and was considering a career in academia – and so I might move things around a bit to make it more useful for constituents who want to contact me.

It has been a busy few days since I was co-opted, not least with the Remembrance Sunday service this morning in which I laid a wreath on behalf of the Labour Party, and it’s only now beginning to sink in. I often say on social media, when people are criticizing politicians as feckless and self-serving, that the vast majority of the politicians I’ve met are decent, hard-working people who are trying to do the best for their communities, even if I happen to disagree with them and the systems of government aren’t ideal. Having talked the talk, I now need to walk the walk. Beyond that, Huntingdonshire District Council are starting a process of consultation on the future of Huntingdon and, in particular, the high street and I hope I can play a useful role in that, both myself and in communicating the views of my constituents.

It’s going to be a busy few months.

Unfortunately, the gambling arcade on Huntingdon High Street is going ahead. I think it’s the wrong decision, though I understand why the DMC reached the decision. As the law stands, you have to have what are called ‘material considerations’ – basically, something in planning law. As I understand it, that’s because the DMC is essentially carrying out a regulatory function. My impression is that several councillors who voted for the application did so because, although they did not actually want the thing to go ahead, they felt that there was no planning reason to turn it down. One of the other problems with planning law is that decisions can be taken to appeal and often – too often – planning inspectors side with developers. Care has to be taken in giving reasons for decling a proposal as otherwise it can be overturned by the planning inspector, sometimes with costs awarded as well.

Three councillors, including Cllrs Conboy and Humphrey, voted against. Cllr Wakeford spoke against, having recused himself. Cllrs Butler and Neish proposed the restriction on hours. I will say, though, that I was unimpressed with one member of the committee – I don’t know their name – who, as I recall, said that the police didn’t have an problem with the application, and so basically there weren’t any reasons to oppose it. Indeed, I think too much of the committee’s debate was on anti-social behaviour, rather than social and economic impacts, or compatibility with the local and neighbourhood plan. I think there were grounds to reject the application because it doesn’t comply with the Huntingdonshire local plan and the Huntingdon neighbourhood plan that weren’t really addressed and, in that respect, I felt the debate was lacking.

One of the things that became clear in the meeting is the effect of the 2021 National Planning Policy Framework and, more particularly, the change in Use Classes made in 2020 have taken yet more power away from local government and effectively given it to developers with the imprimatur of the state. Despite talk of local politics and levelling up, we continue to have a very centralised state in the UK.

One of the things that became clear in the meeting is the effect of the 2021 National Planning Policy Framework and, more particularly, the change in Use Classes made in 2020 mean that there is even more leeway for developers, and so less power for local councils to shape how their communities develop. I don’t want to be partisan, and planning in the UK has been a mess for a long time, but this has to be laid squarely at the door of the current government. The changes make it easier for one type of premises to be converted to another without reference to local councils. The UK, and particularly England outside of London, is very centralised, and I don’t think the discussions of localism and levelling up will have much meaning unless there is meaningful devolution of decision making and funding away from Westminster and Whitehall. Unfortunately, I think that the changes in the law mean that the Huntingdonshire Local Plan and the Huntingdon Neighbourhood Plan are, as with similar plans across the country, much less important than they were. I think that fact, and the effect of covid, may mean that we need to revisit both documents.

Below is the text (more or less) of what I said at last night’s Huntingdonshire District Council Development Management Committee. The supporting papers, including the my written representations, are on the HDC website, particularly Late Representations 2.

To begin, I should say that Huntingdon Town Council, 677 petitioners, Cllr Wakeford, and I don’t share Oliver Cromwell’s views on gambling. The objection is to this particular proposal in this particular location at this particular time because this establishment, in a prime location at the centre of the High Street, is going to make the town less attractive both to other businesses and to visitors and shoppers at a time when Huntingdon High Street is fragile. 

There are sufficient material considerations for the DMC to decline this application. As set out in my written representation, this proposal can be declined under NPPF paragraph 11 as it is neither economically nor socially sustainable. It is not economically sustainable because of the negative knock-on effects it will have on other businesses, present and future, on the high street. It is not socially sustainable because the harms that gambling causes will be magnified in this prominent location at the intersection of the High Street, Chequers Court, and St Benedicts. 

Even if you consider it to be sustainable, NPPF paragraph 12 makes clear that the proposal must still meet with local and neighbourhood plans. As the Deputy Mayor of Huntingdon and I set out, the proposal does not meet TC1 on retail development, TC2 on the public realm, TC3 on St Benedict’s Court, or TL2 on leisure and community facilities from the Huntingdon Neighbourhood Plan, or LP21 on town centre vitality and viability, or LP34 on heritage assets and their settings from the Huntingdonshire local plan. The proposal can be and should be declined on any and all of these grounds.

In crude terms, a prospective business owner who comes to Huntingdon and sees all it can support is a gambling arcade is not going to be inclined to invest. A visitor to Huntingdon who sees that a gambling arcade is slap-bang in the middle of the high street is not going to be inclined to return. I do invite you to do a Google image search for ‘Cashino’ and determine for yourselves how well that would sit with the local and neighbourhood plans.

As the Grimsey Review, and particularly the post-covid update, shows, high streets are at something of a turning point. The fallout from covid seems to be that more people will be working from home, but that retail is struggling and will continue to struggle. We need to decide what we want our High Street to be – either a prosperous market town, with a vibrant high street that caters to the increasing number of people working from home, or the kind of unloved high street that is too familiar to us, stuck in a vicious circle of low footfall and boarded up shops.

The Eurovision season starts in earnest for me when Wiwibloggs start releasing their jury videos. I love the discussions between all the panelists, and by the time the videos are coming out I’ve listened to the songs enough to have opinions on them. At the end of the video, they give an average of the scores from the jurors. The average* (strictly speaking, the arithmetic mean) is a great indicator of how popular a song is; generally, the higher the average, the more popular the song. However, Eurovision is won by people voting for you, not rating every song.

We can see how the average loses some of the detail by taking two fictional countries, Megalomania and Ruritania. Megalomania’s entry, ‘LovePanther’, is a pretty generic pop song, while Ruritania’s entry, ‘Loud Screaming for Peace’ is a divisive ethno-techno-metal number. If the entry from Megalomania received a six from every Wiwijuror, it would receive an average of six. If half the Wiwijurors gave the song from Ruritania zero points, while the other half gave it ten, it would receive an average of five. Based on the average, Megalomania would beat Ruritania. However, the people that really like ‘Loud Screaming for Peace’ would vote for it, while Megalomania might not receive any votes because, while no-one objects to it, they’d be voting for their favourites instead.

One way of capturing this spread of votes is the standard deviation. This gives us an indication of how ‘controversial’ a song is (in the sense of people disagreeing about its merits). A low number means more agreement, and a high number means less agreement.

Country	Standard deviation	Country	Standard deviation
Switzerland	0.76	Australia	1.61
Malta	1.04	Azerbaijan	1.61
Sweden	1.17	Latvia	1.63
Croatia	1.27	Finland	1.69
San Marino	1.27	Spain	1.71
Belgium	1.28	Poland	1.75
Israel	1.31	Austria	1.78
Iceland	1.37	Slovenia	1.84
United Kingdom	1.38	Estonia	1.84
Ireland	1.40	Ukraine	1.84
Greece	1.42	Serbia	1.97
Moldova	1.44	Portugal	2.01
Romania	1.48	Italy	2.03
Russia	1.48	Bulgaria	2.07
Cyprus	1.50	Norway	2.09
Lithuania	1.51	Germany	2.12
North Macedonia	1.55	Netherlands	2.16
France	1.58	Denmark	2.21
Albania	1.58	Czechia	2.23
Georgia	1.59

However, controversial doesn’t mean good. Franc and Albania are equally (according to the Wiwijury) controversial in that they have the same standard deviation. However, Barbara Pravi’s ‘Voilà’ is a masterpiece of composition, writing, and performance that is pushing for the very top, while Albania’s Balkan ballad is, I fear, going to struggle to get out of the semis (sorry, Anxhela!). I’m slightly surprised that the Netherlands has such a high standard deviation, but I can easily see that the naff lyrics and Melfest-machine-feeling of Benny Cristo’s ‘Omaga’ from Czechia would be divisive, as would the eighties styling of Fyr & Flamme’s ‘Øve os på hinanden’; for some reason, there are people who look back at the eighties fondly. ‘I Don’t Feel Hate’ by Jendrik from Germany is also divisive, which makes sense; some people like the wackiness, while some people just see it as lyrically annoying and preachy and musically too many things mashed together.

I’ve been trying to think of a single number to capture both central tendency and dispersion (average and standard deviation), but I just don’t think it’s possible. The best I could come up with was average plus one standard deviation, but that is basically pulled out of the air – about two-thirds of votes come within one standard deviation above or below the mean in a normally distribution (though, as we will see, not all the songs’ verdicts from the Wiwijury are normally distributed).

A better alternative than trying to boil everything down to one number is, I think, to represent it graphically.

The fat bit just before 7.5 indicates where lots of votes went for Croatia, with a few higher and a few more lower. Croatia has an average of 6.73 and a standard deviation of 1.27. Basically, there’s a lot of agreement that is a really good, but not spectacular, song, with a few people rating it higher and a few lower. The highest score was a 9, while the lowest was a 4.5. The curve suggests what the distribution might be if there were more people in the Wiwijury.

On its own, though, that doesn’t tell us much. Let’s put them all together and see what we get.

This list is sorted by average, which actually suggests that the average is a pretty good indicator of how good a song is – remember, the fatter a section is, the more Wiwijurors went for that score for that song. However, it does provide some possible insights for how songs close to each other might do.

Let’s start at the top. France and Malta are an interesting pair to consider and raises a really interesting question about how we interpret these graphs: how far from in from the right should we go? If we were just looking at scores of ten, we would clearly rather be France than Malta. Because France has a longer tail, though, there comes a point at which Malta has more high scores than France. If we say that votes from the Wiwijury of 9+ translate to points from the public televote and the professional juries, France is in the better position. If it’s 8+, they’re probably very close. If it’s 7+, it’s probably Malta that will edge it.

This brings us onto Switzerland. With the caveat from the paragraph above, I think we might actually expect, based on Wiwijury ratings, France and Malta to do better than Switzerland, even though their averages are lower, as they have more of the highest scores. That’s best seen with France – it has a long tail to the left of people who aren’t as keen on the song, which drags the average down. However, you can’t vote against songs.

On a similar basis, I think we might expect Italy to do better than the average would suggest. I’m a little worried about the UK; James Newman is piling up the sevens, but few scores higher than that. Of course, a fantastic stage show would help, and the gaps between verses and lyrics, and the refrain of ‘light up the room!’ suggest that there’s going to be fireworks from Blighty, figuratively and possibly literally.

Portugal have entered another song that I love that no-one else seems to (I still listen to ‘O Jardim’), but the bulge to the right of its ridgeline suggests they might do better than the average suggests (unless those are all the Wiwijurors who know the story behind the song). You can see how controversial Germany is with how wide its distribution is. I think Ukraine might do worse than its average suggests (which makes me sad, as I will almost certainly be voting for GO_A on the night) as it has a peak at around seven and a long tail to the right. Austria might be above where the average would indicate, and so on.

I might look back at previous years and see how well something like mean plus standard deviation, or mean plus interquartile range, of Wiwijury results ranks performances against their actual results. Of course, the Wiwijury results don’t take into account stage performances, national voting patterns and so on, but it’s interesting nonetheless. I suspect that there’ll be a score that effective translates into votes/not votes, and that will answer some of the questions above. Another alternative would be to use a Borda count to rank the songs, as we know how each juror voted.

* Wiwibloggs drops the highest and lowest score when calculating their average to deal with bias; I don’t think there’s a good statistical reason to do that, so I don’t do it.

I am proposing the following motion to Huntingdon CLP regarding the Cambs4Corbyn Facebook page. The reasons for it are obvious if you read the motion’s text and particularly if you follow the links at the end. I’ve added what I said in the meeting at the end of the motion under ‘remarks’.

Update 24th May – The anti-Semitic meme regarding the Rothschilds has been removed from Cambs4Corbyn. There is a link to an archive.org snapshot below; there are also screenshots of the post on social media.

Update 30th May – Cambs4Corbyn appears to be rebranding itself as New Front Page. I have included updated links below.

Update 4th June – the motion was passed by around thirty three votes to one against, with four abstentions. I am delighted to be able to report that the posts linked below have been removed from Cambs4Corbyn.

Cambs4Corbyn

This CLP notes

1. That on 13th May 2019, the Cambs4Corbyn Facebook page posted a false and anti-Semitic meme regarding the Rothschild family;
2. That on 10th May 2019, the Cambs4Corbyn Facebook page posted a meme containing the anti-Semitic mural by Mear One, which Jeremy Corbyn has described as ‘deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic’;
3. That on 15th April 2019, the Cambs4Corbyn Facebook page posted a comment drawing on the racist conspiracy theory about an ‘international Zionist criminal organisation’;
4. That on 20th February 2019, the Cambs4Corbyn Facebook page posted a comment drawing on a racist physical trope about Jews;
5. That there are other offensive posts on the Cambs4Corbyn Facebook page;
6. That commenters on the Cambs4Corbyn Facebook page have called out the anti-Semitic nature of the posts;
7. That the St Ives & District Branch Labour Party website links to the Cambs4Corbyn Facebook page, describing it as a ‘very good left-leaning page’;
8. That the description for the Cambs4Corbyn Facebook page refers to St Ives Branch Labour Party;
9. That the Cambs4Corbyn Facebook page has been noted by critics on social media as being associated with Huntingdon Constituency Labour Party.

This CLP believes

1. That this material shared on the Cambs4Corbyn Facebook page is wholly at odds with the values of the Labour Party and of Jeremy Corbyn;
2. That we have a moral duty to call out racism;
3. That we have a particular moral duty to call out racism in this case precisely because Jeremy Corbyn is our leader and we are in Cambridgeshire.

This CLP resolves

1. To continue to condemn anti-Semitism;
2. To condemn, as members of a diverse party committed to opposing racism, the anti-Semitic material on the Cambs4Corbyn Facebook page;
3. To dissociate itself from the Cambs4Corbyn Facebook page and Twitter account;
4. To mandate the secretary to forward a copy of this motion to the General Secretary of the Labour Party within twenty-four hours of the passing of this motion.

Links

Notes 1

The image was originally at https://www.facebook.com/Cambs4Corbyn/photos/a.184480352207999/350319195624113. It was removed shortly after this motion became public, but was picked up on social media, for instance at https://twitter.com/nicolelampert/status/1128597042513817600. (archive.org version)

Notes 2

The image with the Mear One mural is at https://www.facebook.com/newfrontpage/photos/a.184480352207999/349026149086751 (archive.org version)
Jeremy Corbyn called the mural ‘deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic’, as reported at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43523445

Notes 3

The post referring to the ‘international Zionist criminal organisation’ is at https://www.facebook.com/newfrontpage/posts/338183610171005 (archive.org version)

Notes 4

The post referring to Israel’s ‘big fucking nose’ is at https://www.facebook.com/newfrontpage/posts/316619772327389 (archive.org version)

Notes 5

For instance, https://www.facebook.com/newfrontpage/posts/299316154057751 (archive.org version)

Notes 7

See http://www.stiveslabourparty.org.uk/page21.html (archive.org version)

Notes 8

The description for Cambs4Corbyn has been updated and no longer refers to St Ives branch. However, the Cambs4Corbyn Facebook page still connects itself to St Ives branch, for instance at https://www.facebook.com/newfrontpage/posts/184136652242369?__tn__=-R.

The Cambs4Corbyn Twitter also identifies itself as being from St Ives Labour, for instance at https://twitter.com/Cambs4Corbyn/status/993067715106689024.

There is a snapshot on archive.org for 18th May of Cambs4Corbyn’s about page, where it connects itself to St Ives branch.

Remarks

I would like to start my remarks with a couple of updates. The first is that, mercifully, Cambs4Corbyn has removed the post regarding the Rothschilds I mention under notes 1. The second is that the address for Cambs4Corbyn has been changed to facebook.com/NewFrontPage. The page itself is still called Cambs4Corbyn. 

As socialists, we are committed to equality. That is part of why we abhor racism.

Racism is wrong. Anti-Semitism – the hatred of Jews, a form of racism – is wrong.

Cambs4Corbyn has repeatedly shared anti-Semitic content. I would like to talk you through some of that anti-Semitic content in a moment.

Before that, I want to explain why I’ve proposed this motion.

Firstly, because it’s the right thing to do. Labour has a proud record of standing against racism and discrimination and we should continue that proud record. 

Secondly, because it concerns us. The Cambs4Corbyn page says that it supports Jeremy Corbyn and covers Cambridgeshire. Comrades, this page says it speaks for us. Both the Facebook and Twitter accounts mention St Ives Labour. The St Ives Labour website still links to the old Facebook address, calling it ‘a very good left-leaning page’. It’s not something that we, as a local Labour party, have decided to put out. It’s easy to see, though, why people would think it’s something to do with us. We need to make clear that we want no part of its anti-Semitism.

Thirdly, because one of the ways we show the media, the Jewish community, and the wider public that we are not anti-Semitic – that we actively oppose racism – is to call it out when we see it. I think we do have a problem with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. I also think that people hostile to the Labour Party are using that problem to attack us. We can both deal with the problem and deal with the people who wish the Labour Party ill by calling out anti-Semitism when we see it. We can say, if we are asked, that we did not do nothing when there was anti-Semitism on our patch.

Let me move on to the content on Cambs4Corbyn.

I’m going to mention some of the posts that appear in the motion. I’m afraid they are not very pleasant.

On 20th February, Cambs4Corbyn put up a post that included “Yet another example of vile, apartheid Israel sticking it’s big fucking nose where it’s not wanted.”. Now, you can criticise Israel as much as you want. That’s not the issue. The issue is ‘big fucking nose’. This is drawing on a crude physical stereotype of Jews that goes back to the thirteenth century and has been used to insult and dehumanise Jews since.

On 15th April, Cambs4Corbyn put up a post that included “the international Zionist criminal organization”. This is drawing on the racist conspiracy theory about shadowy Jews trying to control the world that goes back to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

On 10th May, Cambs4Corbyn shared a meme with the infamous Mear One mural that Jeremy Corbyn has described as ‘deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic’.

On their own, I could believe these were oversights or a lack of understanding or a mistake. When it’s repeated like this? I think this is anti-Semitism. I think this is racism.

On the 13th May, Cambs4Corbyn shared this image. It says:

“Hello there. My name is Jacob Rothschild. My family is worth 500 trillion dollars. We own nearly every central bank in the world. We financed both sides of every war since Napoleon. We own your news, the media, your oil, and your government. You have probably never heard of me”.

This is a racist lie. This is drawing on racist physical tropes about Jews in the image at top right, on racist tropes about Jews and money, on racist tropes about a Jewish conspiracy to run the world. This is literally propaganda the Nazis used.

As I mentioned at the start, that particular image has been deleted – apparently, shortly after this motion became public – and many commenters on Cambs4Corbyn did call out the blatant racism of that image before it was deleted. There was no apology. There was no retraction. All we got was a link to an article explaining the racist lie that is the Rothschild conspiracy theory on Skeptoid, but without acknowledging their earlier post or admitting an oversight or lack of understanding or mistake.

I wish I could say that what I’ve just described is the totality of unpleasantness on Cambs4Corbyn. It isn’t. There is more; I’ve just taken a few examples I feel cover the sort of thing we’re dealing with.

I don’t know what’s going through the minds of whoever runs Cambs4Corbyn. I don’t particularly care. What I do know is that we should call out racism – because it gives a bad impression of Labour, because it is from a page claiming to speak for Corbyn supporters in Cambridgeshire, and because it is the right thing to do.

A motion has been proposed to my local Labour Party regarding Venezuela. As speakers will only have two minutes, I would not be able to reply to the motion in any great detail, so I’m going to address it here. I’m going to go through the motion line by line, and provide some general comments at the end. First, though, I want to address directly the question of whether Venezuela is currently a democracy.

Is Venezuela a democracy?

I’m going to start by looking at the famous voting system used in Venezuela, then look at other circumstances surrounding political competition there. I will then look at recent events in Venezuela, and then some of the popular indices of democracy used in political science.

The Venezuelan voting system

Claims have been made that the voting system in Venezuela is extremely robust, and therefore we can be sure that President Maduro was fairly elected. Statements from luminaries such as Jimmy Carter are brought out to support this. I addressed this at some length in a previous blog post, but the short version is that the turnout figures in 2017 were tampered with. Smartmatic, the company that provided the voting system, withdrew from the country because of interference in the voting system. If I may quote myself – and it’s my blog, so I may –

In short, despite the use of impressive election equipment, it was still possible for the elections to be rigged. The 2018 elections were not even conducted with Smartmatic there to audit the process; nor were the regional and municipal elections of the fourth quarter of 2017.

https://www.davidlandoncole.com/2019/01/regarding-skwawkbox-and-venezuelan-elections/

The various people brought out to support the integrity of the voting system made their statements before the system started being rigged.

The Canary has an article about alternative media countering a silent war on truth regarding Venezuela. I do not doubt for a moment that some people are trying to give a particular narrative about Venezuela to justify intervention, military or otherwise, and that some media are helping them, wittingly or otherwise, to do so, because they dislike the left and Chavez. However, I do not doubt for a moment that the reverse is true, with some alternative media running apologia for the regime because they like the left and Chavez. It doesn’t take much digging to show the problems with both sides.

Free and fair elections

I hope I have shown above that the elections were not fair: that is to say, the administration of the elections was not conducted in an even-handed way, to such an extent the technology provider stopped working in the country after fifteen years and fourteen elections. We refer to good elections, though, as being free as well as fair. That is to say, can anyone who so desires contest the elections, without being prevented from doing so or risking reprisal for doing so.

The Venezuelan government has arrested, detained, and otherwise stopped opposition leaders from contesting elections on trumped up charges and without due process.

Imagine if, after a protest turned nasty in London, Andrea Leadsom and Jeremy Hunt called for Jeremy Corbyn to be arrested, and, the day after he was arrested, Theresa May called for him to be imprisoned.

This happened in 2014 to Leopoldo Lopez, as Amnesty International reports

However, the organization believes that the fact that the warrant for the arrest of Leopoldo Lopez was issued one day after the President of the National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello, and the Foreign Minister, Elias Jaua Milano, accused him of bring responsible for the violence during anti-government protests violated his right to the presumption of innocence, and therefore to due process. Neither did the words of President Nicolas Maduro requesting the imprisonment of Leopoldo Lopez one day after his detention help to create a climate of confidence in the judicial system, which should act independently and impartially.

https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/4000/amr530092014en.pdf

Imagine if Diane Abbot and Jon Lansman were travelling in a car, and detained by MI5. Imagine if David Liddington announced that there had been guns and explosives in the car, and they were arrested and put in front of a military court, and the UN said that it was an arbitrary detention.

This happened to Gilber Caro, an MP from the Popular Will party, who was detained by the Bolivarian Intelligence Service. The Vice-President said that guns and explosives had been seized from the car in which he was travelling with another opposition activist, Steyci Escalona. MPs in Venezuela are supposed to have parliamentary immunity; instead,

he was “deprived of his freedom, imprisoned without a warrant, and brought before a military court despite being a civilian

During his detention, Gilber Caro has repeatedly denounced violations to his right to food and being subjected to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.

On 23 October [2017], the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions determined Gilber Caro’s case constituted an arbitrary detention and demanded his immediate release.

https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/AMR5379922018ENGLISH.pdf

Imagine if Jeremy Corbyn was banned from running for office for fifteen years due to administrative irregularities.

This happened to Henrique Capriles, after he led calls for a recall referendum on Nicolas Maduro.

Henrique Capriles is the latest in a series of prominent opposition politicians to be put out of action.

Two years ago, Maria Corina Machado, a former congresswoman was banned from office as was a former mayor, Daniel Ceballos.

In 2015 another prominent opposition leader, Leopoldo Lopez was sentenced to nearly 14 years in prison on charges of inciting violence during anti-government protests in 2014.

Mr Lopez was himself barred from office in 2008 when he was the popular mayor of a Caracas district.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-39534732

These are just three examples. There are many more. Nor is this targeted just at opposition leaders. The title of an Amnesty International post from last month on Venezuela suggests what is going on:

Hunger, punishment and fear, the formula for repression used by authorities under Nicolás Maduro

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/02/venezuela-hunger-punishment-and-fear-the-formula-for-repression-used-by-authorities-under-nicolas-maduro/

In short, the government of Nicolas Maduro is using the power of the state to maintain its power and is abusing the human rights both of opposition leaders and ordinary citizens in the process.

Recent events

It’s important to highlight some of the extraordinary political events that have taken place in Venezuela of late. I draw extensively here from a House of Commons Briefing Paper by John Curtis and Daniel Harari called ‘The 2018 Venezuelan Presidential Election‘. However, these facts are not, I believe, contested.

Hugo Chavez died in office, on 5th March, 2013. The Vice-President, Nicolas Maduro, became Acting President. He would be confirmed as President in the elections of April 2013, when he beat Henrique Capriles (see above) by 1.49% of the vote. In December of 2013, the GPP (Gran Polo Patriotico Simon Bolivar, or Simon Bolivar Great Patriotic Pole; the electoral alliance of which Chavez and Maduro’s party, PSUV, formed part), came first in the municipal elections.

In the elections to the National Assembly of December 2015, the MUD (Mesa de la Unidad Democratica, or Democratic Unity Round Table) won a supermajority of two thirds. In theory, this would allow them to remove supreme court justices and make changes to the constitution. Much legislation and a proposed recall petition on Nicolas Maduro would be rejected by the Supreme Court.

Shortly after those elections, but before the new Assembly took office, new justices were appointed to the Supreme Court. Thirty-four justices of the High Court had stood down earlier that year; the opposition claimed that they were forced out.

In January of 2016, three MUD MPs stood down from the National Assembly. This meant that MUD no longer had a supermajority. The opposition alleged that they were pressured out by the regime.

In March of 2017, the Supreme Court declared the National Assembly to be in contempt, and gave itself the powers of the National Assembly, and said it would pass them out to such bodies as it considered appropriate. The international outcry is such that the ruling is reversed in April.

A special election was held in July 2017 for a Constituent National Assembly, ostensibly to draft a new constitution. The opposition boycotted the elections. The turnout figures were not reliable according to Smartmatic, the company behind the voting system, as I mention above. Smartmatic would leave Venezuela thereafter.

The opposition had organised an unofficial referendum on the Government’s plans for a Constituent National Assembly earlier that month. 98% reject the plans, although I don’t think we can place any trust in that figure actually representing Venezuelan opinion on the matter.

Sworn in during August of 2017, the Constituent National Assembly gave itself the power to pass legislation, effectively sidelining the National Assembly.

The October gubernatorial elections see GPP win 18 of the 23 races. Based on previous opinion polling, MUD claims electoral fraud, but cannot prove it. Four of the MUD governors elected eventually swear their oaths of office before the Constituent National Assembly. That decision apparently ‘fractures the coalition’.

In January of 2018, the Constituent National Assembly calls for the presidential elections scheduled for later that year to be brought forward to April; this receives much criticism, as it is felt there isn’t enough time to properly hold the elections in the reduced timeframe. MUD is barred from the elections. The election is later postponed to May 20. Around this time, the talks between MUD and the government being held in the Dominican Republic broke down.

We then come to the elections of 2018. The opposition grouping has been barred from participating. The dates have been changed. The opposition-controlled National Assembly has been sidelined in favour of a new body, which owes its existence to presidential decree. Opposition leaders have been arrested, detained, and harassed. There are widespread abuses of human rights.

The elections of 2018 were neither free nor fair.

Indices of democracy

There are three main indices of democracy used in political science. These are Democracy-Dictatorship (DD), originated by Adam Przeworski and others; Polity IV by the Centre for Systemic Peace; and Freedom House’s Freedom in the World (FitW).

There are well-known criticisms of FitW, principally based on Freedom House’s conceptions of negative liberties. While I think these are overstated, my preference is actually for the DD index. Unfortunately, DD is only available to 2008, so I turn to Polity IV to give us an indication of Venezuela’s democratic nature.

Polity IV measures democracy from 0 to 10, and autocracy from 0 to 10. This is then combined into a combined polity score – the first number less the second number, to give a figure from +10, meaning very democratic, to -10, meaning very autocratic. The table below gives Venezuela’s Polity IV scores from 2000 to 2017 (the most recent year for which data are available).

Year	Democracy	Autocracy	Polity
2000	7	0	7
2001	6	0	6
2002	6	0	6
2003	6	0	6
2004	6	0	6
2005	6	0	6
2006	5	0	5
2007	5	0	5
2008	5	0	5
2009	1	4	-3
2010	1	4	-3
2011	1	4	-3
2012	1	4	-3
2013	4	0	4
2014	4	0	4
2015	4	0	4
2016	4	0	4
2017	1	4	-3

By way of comparison, some countries that received the maximum 10 in 2017 include New Zealand, Cape Verde, and Uruguay. Four states received the minimum -10 in 2017: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and North Korea. The other states that received a -3 in 2017 are the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Jordan, Tajikistan, and Thailand. The United States received an 8 in 2017, while the UK received a 10.

Of course, it is possible for states’ Polity IV score to change rapidly. I would suggest that recent events in Venezuela do not, however, suggest that is likely.

For what it’s worth, FitW gives Venezuela an aggregate score of 26/100, and status of ‘not free’.

Venezuela is not a democracy.

The motion

The above provides, I hope, some context for the motion. I hope it also explains why I care so much about the issue.

The first section of the motion is ‘this CLP notes’. I will mark the various parts of the motion with an asterisk.

* Juan Guaidó, the leader of Venezuela’s National Assembly, has declared himself to be Interim President of Venezuela.

With the support of the National Assembly. I’ll return to this below.

* Guaidó did not stand in the presidential elections of May 2018, which were won by Nicolás Maduro with 68% of the vote.

The elections were neither free nor fair; Guaido’s political grouping was banned from taking part.

* The Venezuelan constitution contains no provisions for people to declare themselves Interim President.

This is wrong. Article 233 of the Constitution reads (my translation):

The following shall absolute disqualifications for the President of the Republic: their death, their resignation, their removal from office by sentence of the Supreme Court of Justice, their permanent physical or mental incapacity as certified by a medical panel appointed by the Supreme Court of Justice and with the approval of the National Assembly; abandoning the post, or declaration of such by the National Assembly, as well as revocation of mandate by the people.

https://venezuela.justia.com/federales/constitucion-de-la-republica-bolivariana-de-venezuela/titulo-v/capitulo-ii/

The claim made by Guaido and his supporters is that a due constitutional process has been followed. I am in no position to say whether that is legally correct or not. However, it is surely to the credit of the National Assembly that they have at least tried to operate within the constitution, given how fast and loose the government have played with such niceties.

* The Trump administration has formally recognized Guaidó as President of Venezuela, as has the Bolsonaro government in Brazil and other right-wing governments In Latin America.

This is a case of ‘the bad man said it’s bad, so it must be good’. Yes, some right-wing governments have recognised Guaido as president. Just being on the right of the centre does not everything you do is bad or wrong.

The countries that currently recognise Juan Guaido as acting president are as follows. I have underlined those states who have a party in government that is a member of the Socialist International.

Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, the Bahamas, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responses_to_the_2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#Guaid%C3%B3_acting_presidency

The countries that currently recognise Nicolas Maduro as president are as follows.

Belarus, Bolivia, Cambodia, China, Cuba, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Laos, Nicaragua, North Korea, Palestine, Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Serbia, South Africa, Suriname, Syria, Turkey, and Uruguay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responses_to_the_2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#Guaid%C3%B3_acting_presidency

If we have to choose sides based on which countries support who – we don’t, by the way – I’m going for the one with Norway and Iceland, rather than the one with Russia and China.

* The Trump administration has threatened military action against the Venezuelan government.

It has indeed, and has probably helped the Maduro regime in so doing. In case it isn’t clear, I don’t think the US should intervene in Venezuela, not least because the history of its actions in Central and South America mean it cannot possibly be an honest broker.

* UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has described Guaidó as “the right person to take Venezuela forward”,and claims that “Nicolás Maduro is not the legitimate leader of Venezuela”.

I think Robin Cook would also have claimed that Maduro is not the legitimate leader of Venezuela. Maduro is a dictator, who rigs elections and oppresses any opposition to him.

* Economic sanctions from the past months have worsened any economic recovery and have prevented the government from doing anything that they could do to recover from both the hyperinflation and the depression.

The picture is a bit more complicated than that. However, there has been endemic corruption and mismanagement of the economy in Venezuela since before the recent tightening of sanctions. Coupled with the decline in the oil price, it seems unlikely that the current government would be able to extricate Venezuela from the dire economic situation in which it finds itself.

I will say, though, that general sanctions – as opposed to targeted sanctions on specific individuals – cause harm to ordinary people, rather than the leadership of states. I do not support them.

We move onto clauses under ‘This CLP believes’

* Over the last twenty years, the Venezuelan government has pursued policies aimed at alleviating poverty, reducing inequality, providing universal healthcare and education, building huge amounts of social housing, and building systems of participatory democracy.

For the most part, that is true. Systems of democracy, participatory or otherwise, have been avoided or destroyed by the Maduro government. Here, though, we have to acknowledge the improvements that happened under Chavez. He did use oil revenues to help the most disadvantaged in society. There’s an argument to be made that he should have used some of the money to build an economy that would be more resilient in the long term, but that’s a hard argument to make when your people are in penury. That notwithstanding, the administration of PDVSA was poor. Giving the military control of the state oil company, as Maduro did in 2018, is not going to improve production. Equally, he did not deal with the endemic corruption in Venezuela. Indeed, there’s an argument that he worsened both corruption and the democratic resilience of the state through the populism, often focused on himself, he promoted.

* This progressive focus has consistently been opposed by the US government.

I think it is certainly fair to say that the US, and others, have opposed the Venezuelan government for some time. Certainly, much of that is opposition to both Chavez’s social and economic policies. However, it would be quite wrong to say that it is exclusively because of this. I don’t want to further lengthen this already too-long post by going into Venezuela’s foreign policy, but it has, for instance, given material support to the FARC. There is plenty of opposition to Chavez and to Maduro that has nothing to do with those parts of their politics that are progressive.

* International sanctions against Venezuela (in which the UK participates) are a significant factor in the economic difficulties the country is facing.

Yes, but the principal cause is the mismanagement of the economy over a long period by Chavez and, more so, by Maduro.

* U.S. is using International Finance System to Strangle Venezuelan Economy.

It is broadly true that the US is using its financial clout to try to effect political change in Venezuela.

* Venezuela’s political problems must be resolved by Venezuelans, peacefully and within the framework of their constitution, without the interference of foreign states with a vested interest in removing a progressive government.

The government of Venezuela today is not progressive. No matter its economic policies, a government that imprisons opposition leaders and abuses human rights is not progressive. The problems within Venezuela will, ultimately, have to be solved by the Venezuelan people; one of those problems – the principal bar to progress – is Maduro.

I think it is entirely legitimate for other states – I note here the caveat I made above regarding the United States’ historical role in the region – to try to help processes of peace and reconciliation. Whether that counts as ‘interference’, I don’t know. I will note here as well that the Maduro regime has played fast and loose with the constitution: the establishment by decree of the Constituent National Assembly, the bringing forward of the dates of elections, and so on.

The final section comes under the head of “This CLP calls on the Labour parliamentary front bench to”

* Oppose any move by the UK government or the European Union to recognize Juan Guaidó as President or otherwise subvert the democratic process in Venezuela.

As I have said above, the democratic process in Venezuela has been subverted by the Maduro government, which has interfered with voting processes to the extent that the company providing the technology has left the country, imprisoned opposition leaders, and abused human rights. It is simply wrong to say that Nicolas Maduro was democratically elected. Even if he were democratically elected, his actions since the most recent presidential elections mark him as a dictator.

I do not know whether the best way to achieve a just, lasting peace in Venezuela is to recognise Guaido as president. It strikes me, though, that Juan Guaido (a member of Voluntad Popular, which is a member of the same Socialist International to which the UK Labour Party is an observer) is going to have to be involved in the peace process. There has been a lot of demonising of Guaido in the new media. To be clear, I don’t know a great deal about Guaido, but it does look like he is receiving a great deal of criticism simply because he has the temerity to oppose Maduro.

However, I can see why Guaido would reach out to anyone – almost anyone – who could support him in achieving democratic change in Venezuela.

*Facilitate a peaceful, negotiated solution to the political crisis, including calling for an end to sanctions.

I’m not entirely sure what the opposition front bench can do to facilitate such a solution but, such as it can, it should. I do not support removing all sanctions from Venezuela – for instance, the sanctions targeting specific individuals involved in human rights abuses and drug trafficking – but I suspect that I would want all or most of the broad economic sanctions to end.

* Call to stop the Trump’s administration economic warfare and sanctions depriving the country of foreign exchange needed to import necessities. These sanctions are designed to prevent any economic recovery and are now destroying the economy as well as creating shortages of food and medicine.

The flowery language aside, this is similar to the previous clause. I simply re-iterate that principal causes of Venezuela’s current situation are the actions of its government.

Some final thoughts

If you have reached this far, thankyou.

My suspicion is that the promoters of this motion are doing so with the best interests of the people of Venezuela at heart, and that they desire, as I do, justice and peace in that country. I suspect I also share with them great concern about what the US is doing in Venezuela at the moment, and has done in the past.

My concern is that they are at risk of going from opposing American intervention, and certainly military intervention, to supporting the government of Nicolas Maduro. I do not doubt that Maduro has some support, and that Chavez had considerable support. However, we must not allow opposition to military adventurism in Venezuela to become support for the current regime.

If there is to be that just, lasting peace in Venezuela, the regime will have to substantially change, and Guaido or someone like him will be part of the process. What part we can play will be strengthened by making sure we stay close to that which is real.

Unfortunately, I cannot attend my CLP meeting. I’d considered what I would do – propose amendments, speak against, ask questions – but I hope that this will suffice and that, in the unlikely event that anyone who attends the CLP meeting reads this, they will bear what I say in mind.

PS – I’ve written this pretty much from the top of my head; I trust that you will forgive any typos or other slips.

Skwawkbox have a story highlighting the fact that the whois for the Independent Group has a mention of Panama, and are drawing some slightly silly conclusions as a result. Sadly, I’ve seen people sharing this on social media. I’m going to go through what a whois entry is, why Panama appears there, why this is a nothingburger, and then make a couple of (probably snarky) comments.

What is a whois?

When you set up a website, you have to provide various bits of information. Some of these are technical things (like which IP address a computer that wants to load your webpage should look at to actually get the information). At some point in the past, it was decided that there should also be information about the humans behind the website, in case you need to get in touch with them.

You can do a whois for every website – even this one.

Let’s look at a whois

This is the whois for my university, the University of York. My comments are in italics.

Domain: which website are we looking up?
york.ac.uk
Registered For: who was the website set up for?
University of York
Domain Owner: who owns the domain?
University of York
Registered By: who actually did the registering?
Jisc Services Limited
Servers: where should a browser go to actually find the content?
ns0.york.ac.uk 144.32.128.230
ns0.york.ac.uk 2001:630:61:180::1:e6
ns1.york.ac.uk 144.32.128.231
ns1.york.ac.uk 2001:630:61:180::1:e7
ns2.york.ac.uk 144.32.128.232
ns2.york.ac.uk 2001:630:61:180::1:e8
authdns1.csx.cam.ac.uk
Registrant Contact: who do we get in touch with?
John Mason
Registrant Address: how do we get in touch with them?
IT Services
University of York
Heslington
York YO10 5DD
United Kingdom
+44 1904 323 813 (Phone)
@york.ac.uk
Renewal date: Saturday 7th Sep 2019 when is this domain registered until?
Entry updated: Wednesday 7th June 2017 when was the last change made to this entry?
Entry created: Wednesday 17th September 2003 when was this website registered with this host?

You might notice that the email address is incomplete here.
In this case, there’s only one set of contacts, for the registrant. It’s possible to have other sets of contacts, for admin and tech purposes. If you go to the whois page, you can see that the first part of the email is hostmaster, but it appears as an image, so it’s harder to take the email address for spamming.

Internet naughtiness, oh my!

Spamming isn’t the only naughty thing people do on the internet.

Details like that are also used to steal other people’s identities – sometimes to hijack the website, sometimes for other purposes. It’s become such a problem that ICANN (the people behind the internet… sort of) have considered basically getting rid of public whois.

This seems particularly relevant given the anti-Semitic abuse received by Luciana Berger, and the general unpleasantness and hostility around certain sections of the Labour party at the moment.

There is now a market in whois protection or domain privacy. Basically, this is a service where you can use someone else’s details, and they will pass on any messages to you. Just about every consumer host out there offers it.

So, we now know what a whois is for, what a whois looks like, why people might not want their information on there, and what they can do about it.

So what about Panama?

So, let’s return to the whois entry for the Independent Group.

Registry Registrant ID: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Name: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Organization: WhoisGuard, Inc.
Registrant Street: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant City: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant State/Province: Panama
Registrant Postal Code: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Country: PA
Registrant Phone: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Phone Ext: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Fax: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Fax Ext: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Email: Please query the RDDS service of the Registrar of Record identified in this output for information on how to contact the Registrant, Admin, or Tech contact of the queried domain name.

In order to protect their details, whoever set up the website used a domain privacy service from WhoisGuard. WhoisGuard is based in Panama – I don’t know why – but – this bit’s important – the website is not based in Panama.

Why did they use WhoisGuard, which is based in Panama?

Because it was free.

The website was registered with NameCheap, which is based in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. You can see that at the start of the whois

Domain Name: theindependent.group
Registry Domain ID: cc3acaeaf56243a68e5e3d10fc4af9c1-DONUTS
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.namecheap.com
Registrar URL: https://www.namecheap.com/

NameCheap offer WhoisGuard for free.

It’s entirely possible that the domain privacy was chosen as it’s a free option, although it’s entirely understandable why anyone would want to keep their details private, and particularly a group likely to be on the end of internet shenanigans and outright abuse. They are also using CloudFlare, a service for dealing with DDoS attacks – look at the name server entries on the whois. There really shouldn’t be a story here.

It became a stupid story because the Skwawkbox didn’t know what a whois is and couldn’t be bothered to find out. Skwawkbox is saying that the Independent Group’s website is set up in Panama, and it isn’t.

They were earlier alleging that the website was set up in 2015, because they didn’t read the date properly.

Skwawkbox haven’t done even the most basic of journalism to find out if there’s a story, because they are a propaganda outlet.

It bothers me that they seem to get stories from the leader’s office, and it bothers me even more that people who should know better are sharing their contemptible nonsense.

While we’re looking at where websites are based, though, we should consider the Skwawkbox’s whois:

Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant State/Province: Arizona
Registrant Country: US

Skwawkbox has also taken advantage of a domain privacy service – based in Arizona.

This evening is Eurovision You Decide, when the UK will choose its entry for the contest later this year in Tel Aviv. The format is unusual this year; each of three songs are performed by two artists, with an expert panel then choosing which of each match-up goes through to a second round public vote for the eventual winner.

Unfortunately, the songs this year are distinctly lacklustre. As each song is sung in two different ways, I’m mostly going to look at the lyrics.

Freaks

This song is meant to be a hopeful and possibly empowering song for people who have been bullied or picked on for being different or unusual. Unfortunately, it works better as a recruiting song for some sort of cult.

The chorus runs

Come to the land of the lost and lonely
Don’t be afraid, we’ll be one big family
Of freaks, like you and me
I know a place where the bruised and broken
Live like the kings and the queens of tragedy
Just freaks, like you and me
We are the freaks

It never actually tells you where the ‘land of the lost and lonely’ is, but I suspect that reaching their involves Kool-Aid, particularly when we’re told we can ‘live like the kings and queens of tragedy’. I’m not sure whether these are fictional kings and queens (Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, Claudius and Gertrude, Lear) or real kings and queens (Dipendra, Anne Boleyn, Nicholas II), but it didn’t end well for them. However, we’ll be one big family in the land of the lost and lonely, so that’s fine and not at all creepy.

The cult aspect is brought home in the second verse:

We could all be disciples
And we’ll write our own Bible
We’ll put freaks in the titles

which put me in mind of Napoleon wanting to write a new Koran, not getting away from bullies. The outro includes ‘come home’ a couple of times, and now I can’t help but see it as someone wearing white robes telling vulnerable listeners to come and join the family.

There are a couple of another annoyances in the song. The first two lines are

I’ve been locked in the locker
I was picked last in soccer

Which immediately makes people think this song was written for an American artist and has been repurposed for Eurovision; not an auspicious start. The other annoyance is the repeated line

It’s me, you, your, tu and moi, vous

Which translates as ‘it’s me, you, your, you and me, you’, which is gobbledegook, but I presume that adding in three French words will make it appeal to a European audience, or somesuch nonsense. That may be why they sample Pachebel’s Canon, too.

I can’t decide which version I dislike more; I’m sure the singers are perfectly competent, but I can’t get past the lyrics’ mixture of banality and accidental creepiness. I think my preference is probably for the version by MAID, largely because the version from Jordan Clarke sounds like a singalong version from early morning children’s television, though I’m afraid neither recording has much to commend it.

Bigger Than Us

The word ‘bigger’ is repeated thirty-six times. The song, per Eurovision rules, is three minutes long. That’s an average of a bigger every five seconds. The lyrics to the song are uninspiring (but, on the positive side, hardly reminiscent of a cult at all), so it’s going to be much more the performance that matters.

The first two lines fall foul of showing, not telling.

Hear these words that I sing to you
I will make it clear, it’s me and you

Starting a song with an appeal to listen to the song does not suggest much about the author’s confidence in its appeal. Then we have more and more about ‘it’ being ‘bigger than us’. We’re not actually told what ‘it’ is, but I’m assuming that it’s love.

Take my hand and I’ll lead you home
Can you understand?
You will never be alone?

Oops, we’re verging into creepy again. I think this is meant to be sweet, but it has definite shades of looking through a window-pane. ‘Bigger than us’ also implies that it’s more important than us or our desires – and all of a sudden, we’re back at the cult, with the cult leader singing to prospective concubine #14.

The first version of the song, by Michael Rice, sounds like a very generic song released by a talent show winner; he won All Together Now, a talent show on the BBC, so it fits. It’s not a bad song, and it’s sung well enough; it’s just uninspired. There are some “emotional” sections where Michael can show off the depth of feeling that comes across, despite the power in his voice, as a bit flat. I find myself thinking that I need to creosote the fence, which suggests that the song would get lost if it reached Eurovision.

The second version, sung by Holly Tandy, I prefer; it has a slight country vibe to it, to which I’m partial anyway, that would make it stand out at Eurovision.

Sweet Lies

The last song is Sweet Lies. It has, I think, the best set of lyrics of the three. I find the chorus a bit weird:

We’re lying skin to skin
Our love is paper thin
I need you skin to skin (I need you)
Don’t tell me where you’ve been
Don’t wanna hear a thing
Don’t tell me where you’ve been

The ‘skin to skin’ line works, just about, the first time round; I suppose skin to skin could mean anything from holding hands in bed to being in flagrante delicto. Repeating the exact same, slightly weird, phrase two lines later is awkward, and just serves to emphasise something that would be better left unemphasised.

Unfortunately, it says a lot that my favourite of the three songs is the one I can pick least holes in, rather than there being anything particularly to commend it.

One of the versions is, frankly, a bit dull and plodding:

The other, by Kerrie-Anne, is the only one of the six that has any life to it. Once we move past the pre-chorus, she uses the song to show her vocal talents. I can’t help but feel that we’d have had a better end result if she’d had a song written for her, rather than one written for anyone to be able to put a spin on.

The selection format is odd, and one of the effects of writing a song that can be sung by two different people is that we end up with blancmange. Last year’s selection wasn’t, I think, quite as blancmange-y. ‘I Feel the Love’ by Goldstone and ‘Astronaut’ by Liam Tamne were dull, but any of the other four could have served. I wasn’t massively keen on ‘Storm’, the eventual winner, but SuRie’s performance was excellent. Asanda, singing ‘Legends’, seemed to bite off more than she could chew with her performance. My favourite combination was Jaz Ellington singing ‘You’. I think that a lot of it will come down to the performance on the night. That’s as it should be, but there’s no stand-out best song; it’s all just a bit middle of the road.

In terms of the pairings, for ‘Freaks’, I prefer MAID; for ‘Bigger than Us’, I prefer Holly Tandy; and for ‘Sweet Lies’, I prefer Kerrie-Anne. Ranking them from top to bottom, I would go for Kerrie-Anne, Holly Tandy, Anisa, Michael Rice, MAID, and Jordan Clarke.

I don’t think we’re going to be troubling the left hand side of the scoreboard this year.

I very much like the Spanish entry, ‘La Venda’ by Miki (although it has to be a live version, where Mike really sells it; the album version is insipid).

I also really like one of the entries in the Australian selection, ‘2000 and Whatever’ by Electric Fields.

Nukkun ya drekkly.

An article on Skwawkbox makes some eyebrow-raising claims about the validity of elections in Venezuela:

claims that Venezuela’s election was rigged and that right-winger Juan Guaido’s self-proclaimed presidency is therefore somehow valid, simply do not stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

source: https://skwawkbox.org/2019/01/28/video-neutral-election-observers-explain-venezuelas-world-class-election-system-is-unriggable/

This is what is known, in technical terms, as bollocks.

I’m dealing here with the narrow claims that Skwawkbox makes about the (I presume) presidential elections of 20th May 2018. None of that should detract from the appalling situation in Venezuela, or the Maduro regime’s culpability for the situation. The narrow claims that Skwawkbox makes about recent elections being legitimate are, I think, instructive.

The technical arrangements for elections in Venezuela are, indeed, impressive. The system is provided by Smartmatic. Smartmatic’s parent company is SGO, whose chair is none other than Mark Malloch-Brown, the former deputy secretary general of the UN and foreign minister in Gordon Brown’s government. Smartmatic are rightly proud of their achievements in Venezuela.

In a post linked to from the one at hand, Skwawkbox link to an article on the Forbes Leadership Forum setting out how good the Venezuelan election system is. Unfortunately, that article is from 2013. Things have changed since then.

Smartmatic are less happy with the 2017 Venezuelan elections.

It is, therefore, with the deepest regret that we have to report that the turnout figures on Sunday, 30 July, for the Constituent Assembly in Venezuela were tampered with. 

source: https://www.smartmatic.com/news/article/smartmatic-statement-on-the-recent-constituent-assembly-election-in-venezuela/

Indeed, thereafter, Smartmatic stopped working in Venezuela.

After 15 years of service and 14 elections assisted providing a secure and auditable voting system, Smartmatic closed its offices and ceased operations in Venezuela.

source: http://www.smartmatic.com/news/article/smartmatic-announces-cease-of-operations-in-venezuela/

Why did Smartmatic, after a long and successful history in Venezuela, stop working there?

The reasons for the closure are widely known. In August of 2017, after the elections to the National Constituency Assembly, Smartmatic publicly stated that the National Elections Council had announced results that were different from those reflected by the voting system. This episode lead to an immediate rupture of the client-provider relationship. 

source: http://www.smartmatic.com/news/article/smartmatic-announces-cease-of-operations-in-venezuela/

In short, despite the use of impressive election equipment, it was still possible for the elections to be rigged. The 2018 elections were not even conducted with Smartmatic there to audit the process; nor were the regional and municipal elections of the fourth quarter of 2017.

It took a few minutes on Google to find this information. I question why Skwawkbox has published an article claiming that the Venezuela electoral system has integrity – indeed, that “its mandate is far more foolproof than governments in the UK and US can currently claim” – without mentioning that the company providing the election machines has said that an election was rigged even though its kit was being used, and has pulled out of the country because the elections are manifestly unfair.

In case there is any doubt, the Venezuelan National Electoral Commission (CNE) currently says that they are using Smartmatic technology.^†

Who is maintaining and setting up these machines? Who is verifying that it’s all done properly? What are the audit procedures? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How do we know that the fraud, identified by Smartmatic, that was perpetrated at previous elections was not repeated?

In case it needs clarifying, the company that provides the election machines has said a previous election was rigged, and has pulled out of the country. However, the integrity of the democratic process relies on more than just counting votes, and the legitimacy of a regime relies on more than just having been elected.

I was going to put here a list of the various outrages against democracy and human rights committed by the Maduro regime – the fraudulent elections, the imprisoned opposition leaders, the abrogation of the National Assembly’s powers, the removal of government critics of Maduro, the prevention of opposition parties from contesting elections, the extra-judicial killings. The information, for anyone who cares to find it, is freely available. There is a useful briefing paper from the House of Commons library; I found the timeline of political developments particularly useful. You could follow what the UN OHCHR or Amnesty or Human Rights Watch say.

To put such a list would be pointless.

It’s pointless, because Skwawkbox either does not care about reality, or has chosen to ignore it in service of its political aims. It is perfectly reasonable to say that there should not be a military intervention by foreign powers, and particularly not the United States, in Venezuela. It is defensible to say that there should be no intervention of any sort, and, again, particularly not by the United States. You could even say that Juan Guaidó has acted wrongly.

That is not what Skwawkbox has said. In its final comment, the editor of Skwawkbox says

The evidence is clear that the Establishment is selling politically-motivated snake-oil.

Maduro’s government may be imperfect, but its democratic validity is beyond question – and the process that gave it its mandate is far more foolproof than governments in the UK and US can currently claim.

source: https://skwawkbox.org/2019/01/28/video-neutral-election-observers-explain-venezuelas-world-class-election-system-is-unriggable/

Maduro’s government is not ‘imperfect’. It is a dictatorship that has reduced its population into penury and hunger.

Its democratic validity is not beyond question; the imprisoned opposition figures, the abuses of human rights, and the flood of refugees from Venezuela are testament to that.

The process that gave Maduro’s government mandate is held to be flawed by the company that set the system up.

None of this matters to Skwawkbox. The information is readily available, but they choose either not to look for it or to ignore it. Criticising the Maduro regime in Venezuela does not make one a neoconservative or liberal interventionist or even mean that you’re proposing a particular course of action. Skwawkbox are not criticising other people’s solutions to the crisis in Venezuela; they are acting as apologists for the Maduro regime by giving a false impression of the reliability of the process by which Maduro was most recently elected.

They are ‘selling politically-motivated snake-oil’.

† the first two paragraphs of the article read in English
“The voting system in Venezuela is totally automated and can be audited through all of its phases. In 2004, Venezuela became the first country in the world to hold a national election with machines that print the vote validation. Recently, in 2012, Venezuela returned to set the pace when it held the first national election with biometric authentication of voters before activating voting machines.
The electoral technology’s provider is the multinational, Smartmatic, which was chose in 2004 after having scored the highest results in system security and auditability compared to its competitors”.