Blog

Guardian Local – a good thing

Posted on by David Landon Cole

A little while back, I wrote a piece arguing for a ‘Guardian London’ supplement to the Guardian, similar to Guardian America or Comment is Free, both here and at Liberal Conspiracy.

Whether or not the Guardian read, let alone paid any attention to, my thoughts, I am very glad to see this:

Guardian Local planned to launch next year
Starting with Leeds, Cardiff and Edinburgh, guardian.co.uk is planning to launch a local news project in a small number of locations. At the moment guardian.co.uk is looking for bloggers – with journalistic qualifications “desirable” – to help cover community news, and report on local developments. The project will emphasise local political decision-making, and is scheduled to go live next year.

“Guardian Local is a small-scale experimental approach to local newsgathering. We are focusing on three politically engaged cities and we expect to launch in early 2010,” said Emily Bell, the director of digital development at Guardian News & Media.

Read more over at the Guardian. Now, I think there is a difference between the ‘local’ and ‘hyperlocal’ and the coverage I think London – the fifth home nation – needs. However, it takes the same line of wanting to build and support citizen journalism. London also needs better local coverage and, if coverage at the local level in London can be improved, we might be able to do the same for London level coverage.

xD.

Off on my travels

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I’ve spent the past few days in Kyiv, Ukraine. One way and another, I’m travelling quite a lot at the moment, but all I tend to see is the inside of hotels and conference centres, so I was determined to do a tour of Kyiv. Unfortunately, by the time the allotted day came round, I was absolutely exhausted, so I haven’t seen nearly as much as I would have liked.

General impressions, though, are very good. The streets in central Kyiv are all very wide – probably fifty metres between buildings on the main roads – which means there is plenty of room to stroll through a city that was either not too badly affected by the ravages of communist architecture or is doing a good job of renovating itself. It also makes the city quiet, despite the heavy traffic. There’s plenty to see and do – the Museum of the Great Patriotic War is very interesting, and it’s lovely to walk along the Dnieper and see the islands in the river.

The Atlantic Treaty Association’s 55th General Assembly brought me to the Ukraine. Ukraine is, as we know, on a path that may, if the people desire it, take it into NATO. While it remains controversial, the people I met here, from the government and broader civil society, suggested to me that there is commitment to modernisation and Euro-Atlantic integration, whether or not that actually means signing up to the Washington Treaty or not.

The next few weeks see me in Macedonia, Slovakia and maybe Montenegro.

xD.

Why did Obama receive the Nobel Peace Prize?

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I’ve been trying to work out why the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Obama.

Prima facie, it appears a strange decision.
The citation makes it clear that the award was made in expectation of future achievements –

“democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.”

That is a precedent. Recent laureates – Martti Ahtisaari, Al Gore & the IPCC, Muhammad Yunus & Grameen Bank, the IAEA & Mohammad El Baradei, Wangaari Mathai and Shirin Ebadi – have received the prize after the achievement, following the logic that Al Gore & the IPCC raised knowledge and awareness of climate change. Jimmy Carter received the prize not for his presidency but his work thereafter. However, there are other comparisons to be drawn; Kim Dae Jung received the prize, although North and South Korea remain divided; Rabin, Peres and Arafat received the prize, although the conflict still goes on in the Levant.

The will of Alfred Nobel says that the prize should go

to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

I suspect that the members of the special committee of the Norwegian Storting, Thorbjørn Jagland, Kaci Kullmann Five, Sissel Marie Rønbeck, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn and Ågot Valle, opted for Obama on the basis that he had done work for building fraternity between nations – the Cairo speech – and the reduction of standing armies – or at least standing nuclear weapons. The President of the USA saying that the USA at least wants a world free of nuclear weapons or that there can be a better relationship between the Western and Muslim worlds probably means by default that he has done good work. Indeed, the citation says

“The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”

I do not think that the members of the committee wanted to court such controversy, and so conclude that they must not have been aware that it would have riled a section of American society and so possibly made things harder for Obama, as well as raising questions about the prize. Perhaps when he had more concrete achievements under his belt, it would have been appropriate; as it is, the predictable, political fallout means that Obama should have been seen by the Committee as a poor choice – at least for now.

xD.

PS I’m currently in Kyiv at a conference with representatives of forty-two countries. The universal reaction to the news was ‘what the fuck?’

A short letter to Mr Djanogly

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Jonathan Djanogly, MP,
House of Commons,
London SW1A 0AA.

Dear Mr Djanogly,

Re: Conduct of Mr Patrick Mercer

As you will be aware, there was a story in the press earlier this year about a hit-list of prominent British Jews, including Lord Sugar. The Sun has since admitted it was false, apologised and withdrawn the article. The inspiration for the article came from Mr Glen Jenvey, who Mr Mercer has described as ‘a man who needs to be listened to’.

A colleague of mine, Tim Ireland, discovered the story’s inaccuracy through his investigation in his own time. Since then, Mr Ireland has been branded a child molester and had his home address and ex-directory telephone number published on the internet.

I am writing to you because your colleague, Mr Mercer, has caused a number of the problems Mr Ireland faces through both his actions and inactions, including denying contacts with Mr Jenvey despite evidence in the public domain to the contrary. A summary of the events can be found on the Guardian’s website (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/25/the-sun-ummah-unite-bardot) and on Mr Ireland’s own website (http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2009/09/patrick_mercer_boom.asp).

I should be very grateful if you could find the time to discuss this with Mr Mercer and if you could inform me of the results of that discussion.

Yours sincerely,

David Cole.

The London polity

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The London Evening Standard is to become a freesheet, the BBC report. thelondonpaper was pulled by News International last month. We are now down to three, non-specialist, London-wide newspapers, the ES, London Lite and Metro. I’m excluding things like Sport, Shortlist and City AM.

This is not good. We will shortly only have two newspapers in London. Television and radio news for London is largely a joke, with the possible exception of the City Hall slot on BBC1’s Politics Show.

London has a population on the order of seven and one-half million. If it were an independent country, it would rank ninety-second out of two hundred odd, behind Burundi and ahead of Switzerland. In terms of GDP per capita, it would be third, behind Luxembourg and ahead of Norway. It is a population, financial and cultural centre. In other words, London matters. From the point of view of the UK, London really matters. What happens within London matters. The politics and governance of London matter.

However, there is no London polity. It is starting to develop on the internet, but the lack of coverage of London politics in traditional outlets (including, I would add, the Standard) suggests that the desire for coverage of the politics of the city is not yet there (or at least not yet recognised). Of course, it’s hard to see to what extent that desire exists, or to generate it, without that coverage. We find ourselves in a catch-22. I think that greater awareness of the existence of London as an important political entity below the national, UK level would be a good thing, for the reasons I describe above. Perhaps the development of some sort of London national sentiment would help, although that has historically required the generation of an imagined community through what Benedict Anderson refers to as print capitalism. Given that we need better and wider supervision of London governance in order to make the same London governance work, I think we have to use the inelegant principle that when you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow; perhaps giving powers to London similar to those Wales had after the first devolution might be a start.

xD.

UPDATE 1550 – I’d like to flag up a couple of posts relating to the London Evening Standard by the Tory Troll and 853.

Credit where credit’s due: Nadine’s right on this one

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I’m no fan of the Hon. Member for Mid Beds, but, credit where credit’s due, I wholly agree with her on the question asked by Andrew Marr of the PM.

Attacking the man in such a personal way, and not at all professionally, took journalism to a new low and eroded what respect is left within society for politicians. It moved us one step further along the road of a society concerned more with image and gossip than substance and fact. It was a very significant and sad moment.

Do go and read the full post. When you’re done reading that, read this excellent post from Graeme Archer on the same subject over at CentreRight. It’s just a shame that the comments on that piece aren’t as well considered.

It’s one thing for guttersnipes like Paul Staines and the bloggertarians to harp on about the subject of Brown’s mental health; quite another for a reputable journalist to ask a question based on nothing more than innuendo.

I wrote about this subject earlier this month.

xD.

UPDATE 1400 – it would appear that the blogger who originated this story admits that he has no evidence (C4 news).

UPDATE 1815 – please see Tim Ireland’s comment below. Dorries is a hypocrite; even when she’s right, she’s wrong.

The influence of the Crown

Posted on by David Landon Cole

On the 6th April [1780], Mr. Dunning moved … ‘that the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.’

– Erskine May, The Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George III, Ch. 1, available free online here.

If the constitutional settlement that comes down to us from the Glorious Revolution and the 1689 Bill of Rights means anything, it is that the Crown does not interfere in the political life of the country – no political patronage, no advocacy and certainly no interfering with democracy. The heir apparent cannot be separated from the reigning monarch for three reasons. Firstly, it would be too easy for the heir apparent to be a means for the monarch to avoid the restrictions on their action. Secondly, the heir apparent receives a stipend from the state and the Duchy of Cornwall; they are bound by the same constitutional principles as the monarch. Thirdly, they can effectively give the imprimatur of the state – without recourse to Parliament.

It is worth remembering that the first grievance in the Bill of Rights reads

Whereas the late King … did endeavour to subvert and extirpate … the laws and liberties of this kingdom; by assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament

While it might no longer be a matter of life and death, Chelsea Barracks is the largest urban brownfield site in the EU and were sold for £959m – no trifle. Moreover, the Prince’s actions over Chelsea Barracks are an interference in the lawful action of a private citizen in a manner not approved by Parliament.

Prince Charles, as we know, has been interfering in the democratic process by advocating his preferred architects*. However, it goes beyond this.

Through the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, there is criticism with a crest of ‘orthodox’ medicine and advocacy of homeopathy and chiropractic, amongst others.

Through the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment, there is the promotion of the old against the new.

Through Duchy Originals, there is distortion of the market and a removal of opportunities for small companies to enter the organic market.

I do not mean to diminish in any way the work of the charities supported by the Prince. However, his recent comportment, leading to damage to the constitutional settlement and criticism for his action, can be said to be favourable neither to the charities nor to the country. If the Prince is prepared to make a quiet phone call to advance the interests of one of his favoured architects, who is to say that he will not do the same to force a business’s hand?

All the other activities the Prince undertakes carry the same risk. Advocating these things aren’t necessarily bad – with the exception of the dangerous guff and nonsense spouted about medicine. If, in Bagehot’s phrase, the monarchy is the dignified part of the constitution, they must both remain and be seen to remain dignified; that implies a step’s removal from society. If their cause is worthy, none of the charities supported by the Prince would struggle without his involvement. If they are dependent for survival or eficacy on his involvement, the monarchy is entering into the political realm. I would add that there is a difference between an established society looking for a royal to be a patron, and a royal setting up a society to promote a particular interest.

One day, Charles will be King. It should be clear that intervention by the monarch in a democratic process of our country would provoke a constitutional crisis. I feel that the same principles apply to the heir apparent. I fear that the future King, even if he doesn’t breach this important principle of the constitution, may by his past actions weaken it unless it is made clear that there will be no repeat of the interference. Mr Dunning’s motion of 1780 seems appropriate now.

xD.

* – While that was going on, I was reading Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead. There seemed to be certain comparisons to be made between the naf style of pastiche favoured by the cultural elite in the novel and those favoured by Prince Charles. Everything has to be old; anything contemporary is a priori bad.

I endorse this message

Posted on by David Landon Cole

From Chicken Yoghurt:

Remember this story in The Sun from earlier in the year?

Fears grew last night that hate-filled Islamic extremists are drawing up a “hit list” of Britain’s leading Jews – bringing the Middle East conflict terrifyingly close to home.

TV’s The Apprentice boss Sir Alan Sugar and Amy Winehouse record producer Mark Ronson are among prominent names discussed on a fanatics’ website. Labour Peer and pal of Tony Blair Lord Levy, Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Princess Diana’s divorce lawyer Anthony Julius are also understood to be potential targets.

In a very fine piece of investigative journalism (remember that?) Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads, with help from Richard Bartholomew, discovered this story to be a massive hoax perpetrated by a man called Glen Jenvey, a man who has in the past worked with Tory MP Patrick Mercer, the parliamentary counterterrorism subcommittee chairman.

Tim’s reward? To be smeared, to have his mental health impugned, to be accused of being a paedophile, lied about, vilified, stalked, and finally his home address made public on the internet. He has had to involve the police. The harassment continues. Those in a real position to help him put an end to this have, disgracefully and unforgivably, refused to do so.

I’m proud to know Tim well and know something of what he’s been through in the last few months. And all for calling someone on their dangerous bullshit. He deserves much better for doing what a far better resourced press and media should have been doing themselves. He deserves full credit and any damage to his reputation restored.

To those who have helped do this to him or stood by and done nothing by allowing petty disputes get in the way of doing the right thing: it won’t be forgotten. This isn’t a game or an inter-blog spat – this is about a person’s safety and well-being and that of his family. The behaviour of some of the prominent Tories involved in all this is gut-churning.

Tim could do with a hand. You could start here.

I’m Dave Cole and I endorse this message. I’ll be writing to my MP later on.

xD.

Barnbrook shouldn’t have been suspended

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The fearmongering, lying, racist Richard Barnbrook should not be suspended from Barking & Dagenham council.

As Adam ‘Tory Troll’ Bienkov reports, the decision was handed down by a joint standards committee between the GLA and B&D council. Barnbrook put up a mendacious video saying there had been three stabbings in three weeks in LB Barking & Dagenham when there hadn’t and didn’t take the video down when its falsehood was pointed out to him by the police.

Barnbrook and the BNP try to capitalise on knife crime by making facts up and creating London’s Mothers Against Knives – a BNP front group that just coincidentally had a logo very similar to the actual Mothers Against Knives.

Otherwise, the remedial measures I think are rather appropriate. From the GLA, they are formal censure; a requirement to apologise on the GLA website and on his personal blog; to undergo training on ethics and standards in public life. From B&D, they are suspension for one calendar month without pay; requirement to apologise; failure to apologise leading to indefinite suspension. I’m sure that the press and blogs will cover it. The Evening Standard will, with a bit of luck, splash it on its posters.

I simply that is wrong in principle for anyone to be able to cashier an elected representative other than the electorate. Moreover, it makes it far too easy for aspersions to be cast on spurious grounds – and yes, I am thinking back to Ken’s mayoralty here. If an elected representative has to be removed, let there be a recall election, not a second-guessing of democracy.

xD.

David Aaronovitch at Skeptics in the Pub London

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The speaker at this month’s Skeptics in the Pub London was David Aaronovitch, speaking on his new book, Voodoo Histories and the subject of conspiracy theories more generally.

It was an enjoyable evening, and Aaronovitch made a cogent set of interesting arguments – I will probably buy his book – but I can’t help but feel that is lacked a certain killer punch.

I was pleased to see that Simon Singh was in attendance, and that the emphatic support he received was in no way bogus.

Below the fold are my impression of the evening.

Continue reading “David Aaronovitch at Skeptics in the Pub London” →