urn:uuid:0a25c25a-558d-5cfe-846a-54275bb79a2d 2009-07-21T17:13:58-04:00 rose22 urn:uuid:a3d60cff-6c36-a62c-9f95-5bf8302a0607 2009-07-20T18:09:46-04:00

The Times today has run an article that says that there's little discernable difference between breastfed and bottlefed babies.
It looks like there's actually no real evidence of all the supposed benefits that I was told my baby would miss out on if I didn't breastfeed.  I feel lied to.

It seems that the benefits actually come from the baby having the sort of mother that tries to follow medical advice and have a healthy lifestyle. 
It seems that that sort of mother is oftern also the sort of mother that tries to breastfeed and is more persistent about it.  And I was definitely persistent.  Anyone who has expressed exclusively for 5 weeks without any help from their baby knows the meaning of selfless love.
So I'm hopeful that my son will still benefit from all the benefits if they do come from the breastmilk (because I tried so hard for so long) and, if it doesn't come from that, then my runs on the common with him and my husband's organic food fetish are setting him up for the best health benefits we can.

But I was also bullied over breastfeeding, I've come to realise.  
I felt that it was a factor in being in hopsital longer than was strictly necessary for the wellbeing of my child or myself (and certainly my husband who ended up camping out on the floor there because he missed us and wanted to help us get better).
It seems I wasn't the only one to feel like that - @cafebebe has posted about her experiences as a guest post at www.omgip.blogspot.com and it seems that treatment as if you are some sort of lazy miscreant is common.

I've noticed too that there seems to be a frequent line that breastfeeding counselling is all the help that's needed to keep tired, frustrated, women in pain breastfeeding their hungry, frustrated babies. 
I had breastfeeding counselling - at eight weeks.  My son demonstrated there that he was perfectly capable but unhappy about it, and a week later he refused entirely and never tried again.

So there are some questions:
There is a question as to why health visitors can't really help about formula feeding (only the hygiene aspect is ever mentioned whereas what I wanted to know was which milk was most likely to suit my son). 
And there's a question over why the NHS has printed leaflets setting out all these benefits of breastfeeding when the World Helath Organisation describes any difference as "relatively modest".
And I just wonder whether the focus on breastfeeding has been a bit of a hamfisted attempt at a social "nudge" - focus on the breastfeeding rather than on the mothers when the real link is between the attitude of the parents (and possibly social class?), part of the whole attempt to overcome inequality by state intervention?    

Don't get me wrong - I'll still try to breastfeed next time round. 
After all, if I'm the mother of the baby, then it stands to reason that the milk I'll produce will be physiologically attuned to the baby and designed by God and nature to be what is needed to sustain him or her.
But it does seem that nurture is as important as nature in respect of a child's ongoing health.]]>

urn:uuid:7b142746-3254-3655-0ee5-b0ff28e564f2 2009-07-18T19:55:23-04:00

A male midwife - yep, that a man who may have been present at many births but has never and will never experience birth personally - has said that pain in labour is a good thing, that it is necessary and prepares a mother for the hardships of looking after a young child.  

Now, having tried to read a bit more about what he actally said, it seems Dr Denis Walsh said a lot of things that were actually quite sensible about alternatives that are out there.
But he ruined it by moralising about pain relief.

Birth is indeed a natural process that billions and billions of women have been through over millennia and it's only in recent times that there's been an expectation that drugs should be considered to relieve that pain. 
Yes, but it's only comparatively recently that the drugs have become available.
If you watch films and TV then most people have an epidural - it's considered normal.
And fewer women in the west die in childbirth these days. That's due to the medical intervention that's available. And I refuse to say that's a bad thing.

At this point I should say that I didn't really want drugs in labour. 
Thie idea of having a needle stuck into my spine, with a risk of paralysis if it went wrong, seemed daft to me.
My birth plan was to have a waterbirth, use a gymball, massage, keep mobile as long as possible, try gas and air, and - if I needed it - pethadine. I panicked at the last moment and hired a TENS machine that I didn't actually use.  And I said I'd have an epidural as a last resort if I was to e.g. need a caesarean. 
I was a good NCT mum, you see. Natural is best. Especially when you don't know exactly what you're in for with a first birth. 

Of course the birthplan went awry.  We should have guessed when no one at the hospital was the faintest bit interested in seeing it.  But it basically went out the window immediately that it was discovered that I had pre-eclampsia and was told to lie down with lots of monitors strapped to me. 
Lying on your back, despite what TV and films seems to show as normal, is actually the most painful position in which to have contractions, so I refused. 
I'm lucky to have a husband that supported me in that.  And did the massage.
However, although he knew my view that I didn't want an epidural, when I was offered one (and the midwives were fairly persistent about it), he begged me to accept because he didn't like seeing me in pain. Dr Denis Walsh says that 20% of epidurals are given to women who don't need them.
Well, painful as giving birth was, I didn't need one.
I did take the pethadine though.  I was warned it wouldn't do much, but it did just enough.  But then through a combination of undiagnosed pre-eclampsia and a family history of low birthweight babies my baby was only just over 2.5kg.

So I'm hardly in a position to judge any woman that chooses to have the drugs and specifically the epidural.  After all an ex-boyfriend f mine weighed in at practically 12lbs - that's a Christmas turkey! 

The thing is, I think mothers are under an awful lot of pressure already. 
Eat this, don't eat that (to peanut, nut to pea... oh and here's a couple of hndred quid for vegetables).
Breastfeed,don't bottlefeed unless you want to give your baby the equivalent of a McDonalds (yes I really was told that).
Milk only for 4 months, no make that 6 (even if your child seems hungry?)
Don't put on too much weight, you're not gaining enough weight so you're baby must be undersized.
Feed on demand, no, feed to a regime.
And that's only the midwives and health visitors!
   
There's a lot of pressure too from outside. 
Celebrity mums that must be starving themselves to lose weight at the rate they do. 
The rattle race to have the "right" pram (it's bugaboos and phil and ted's round this way but honestly, have you tried getting them onto a bus?) and the right baby clothes/ accessories.
To go to as many baby classes as you can pack in. 
Get into the right nursery, the right school...
To live up to the grandparents' expectations.
To go back to work/ stay at home/ work part-time and feel you're dedicated enough to each.
To remember your partner as well as your baby needs your time.
And now this midwife, this male midwife who will never go through this, is adding to the pressure implying that women are somehow weak or or soft or lazy in opting to take pain relief in labour?
Argh! 

As far as I'm concerned, having done it, there's no right and moral way to give birth. 
A birth with no pain relief is no more or less a "proper" birth than a full-on casarean with epidural anesthetic.  But do me a favour.  Read up on it.  Find out about the options.  then if you want the drugs, go for it.  But do it from a position of knowledge.

But remember, it's a big conspiracy. Birth is basically the easy bit.
It's the next year or so that kills you as a parent - the zombie-like state of constantly broken sleep in which you exist, feeling like a milk cow, suddenly realising that you always come second now. (Now go and buy your parents a present if they did all that for you...)

Motherhood is hard. Dr Walsh is right about that.  But the birth itself should be hard as preparation?  That's a moral judgement.  And one I don't think was necessary nor the judger well-placed to make.]]>

urn:uuid:09e16257-844f-f509-25a4-5c4a6b5ace78 2009-07-13T14:29:20-04:00

Charlemagne over at the Economist.
I've been banging on on this blog for a long time about the importance of EU engagement, EU lobbying and that there's no such thing as a policy of safe disinterest.
Looks like the hedge funds are a perfect example.  I've heard today in the news that the hedge fund managers are up in arms over the latest EU proposals which they say would fundamentally alter the way they work, and do not seem to understand the world of hedge funds.
It's very simple.  No legislator wants to legislate without some knowledge of a sector and can only work with the information that is out there.  If you don't engage, how can anyone know whether what's proposed is going to affect you?  
1) Look at whatever version of a Treaty is in force...
(clue: at the moment it's Nice - Lisbon is still not quite there on the ratification...);
2) Is there something in there that in some way refers to the area you work in?
(think broad rather than looking for mention of e.g. "financial services" rather than "hedge funds can specifically be subject to regulation at EU level"); 
3) If there is, is there any legislation at EU level?
(try EURLEX. If so, then this is an area of active European competence that you really need to keep an eye on);
4) If there is not, do you think you needn't bother about the EU?
(clue: if there's a European Council conclusion that mentions it, you can look forward to something soon. If it's in the treaty, it either an area of competence, or of complementary comepetence, whether it's exercised by the European Commission to date or not)
;
5) Decide how much and what sort of engagement you want...
- direct, with you or your staff contacting the relevant MS government (who set the national position that covers you), the European Commission desk officer (part of a relatively small team handling the subject and who will almost certainly want to hear from you th expert!) and key interested MEPs (on the right committees) plus higher level contacts both administrative and political...
- indirect, via industry lobby groups;
- indirect via a paid public affairs organisation.
There are of course advantages and disadvantages to each, and the various options are not mutually exclusive.

I know that there's a bit of a lack of understanding about how the EU works, and what can actually be done in Brussels, particularly in the EU. 
I've said before that I don't think that the media has helped further EU understanding in the UK and lazy and/or deliberately misleading reporting has actually hindered.
I simply don't understand how you can consider yourself to be a professional, especially in business, and assume that you can ignore the EU.
You can of course choose to dislike it, feel it should not be involved in the regulation of your business area, campaign for your country to not be part of it.  That's your choice, politically.  But disengagement?  It just doesn't make business sense.  ]]>

urn:uuid:cb3cf9c7-8f14-d0e0-252c-bdce53fe96dc 2009-07-12T15:37:18-04:00

Torchwood: Children of Earth gets us to ask serious questions of ourselves - could we, in all honesty, say that we we think our politicians would do other than the programme's characters did?  Are we sure that we would not sacrifice 10% of the children on earth to save the whole human race?  What would we accept to do to ensure it were not our own children that were in that 10%?
But while it would be easy to write a post about why sci fi and fantasy are unfairly treated as niche genres when they are capable of teaching us so much more about ourselves than the zoo-like explotiation TV "reality" shows do, actually I want to look at the future of Torchwood.

I'd dearly like to believe that it has one. 
Torchwood started as a BBC3 show (also shown on BBC2), a kind of earth-bound, darker Doctor Who for grown ups.  The first series has 5 principle characters: Captain Jack Harkness (from Doctor Who), tech specialist Toshiko Sato, doctor Owen Harper, fixer Ianto Jones and new recruit cop Gwen Cooper.  Devised by Russell T Davies, who also wrote groundbreaking Channel 4 series Queer as Folk, the series explored sexuality, fantasy and horror themes as well as classic sci fi. 
While it was not quite clear what Torchwood was meant to be in the thirteen episodes of series one, series two was much tighter (and shown on BBC2 with repeats on BBC3 rather than the other way around). 
With cameos from James Marsters (Spike from Buffy) and the character Martha Jones from Doctor Who, the series was compelling, and then - suddenly - halfway through, Owen is killed off.  Well, ok, this is sci fi after all, the character continues to live for a few episodes. And then is finally killed off, along with Toshiko for good measure.
Hmm.  
As a fan you find yourself thinking that we're into Spooks (MI5 I think it's called in the US) territory here - that it's actually dangerous to emotionally invest in the main characters because they'll die, and die horrifically.

The relationship between Doctor Who and Torchwood comes back into play at this point.  In the final episode of series 4 of "new Who", Captain Jack is seen walking off with (UNIT soldier and doctor) Martha Jones and (IT genius and anti-cyberman guerilla fighter) Mickey Smith and appears to be offering them jobs.
But we know that Freema Agyeman (Martha) has a starring role in an ITV drama, and Noel Clarke is an award winning writer and film director so probably neither would be available for Torchwood series 3...

So series 3 arrives.  Rather than 13 episodes on BBC2, it is to be on BBC1 (that's it, that's the big time for a series, that is!)  But cut to just 5 episodes.  5???  But 5 episodes to be screened over 1 week in a primetime postwatershed slot.
And it's been brilliant and got very impressive viewing figures indeed.
And Life, Doctor Who and Combom is much better at covering stats and rumour stuff than I am.
But here's the thing: Torchwood was just three of them, and by the end, only 2 principle characters remianed - one pregnant (with Torchwood hardly a 9-5 job) and the other a distraught man that cannot age who sacrificed a member of his own family to save humanity.

There are a few other characters that could step into the Torchwood team if there were to be a series 4:
- PC Andy (not so bright cop, who didn't actually feature as much as I expected in CoE and who could do the ingenue role that Gwen's so clearly left behind);
- Lois Habiba (reluctant traitor, ex civil servant, PA extrordinaire who could step into th Ianto role);
- Johnson (ruthlessly efficient assassin who believed in doing the right thing to save the world);
- Rhys (haulage manager, nervous father to be - but would we want a husband and wife team in Torchwood?).
And after the Rupesh red herring, a new doctor's needed to fill Owen's shoes...
A series can lose a huge number of characters and still continue as a popular franchise, as Spooks shows.

But actually the biggest challenge is whether Gwen can continue in the series - whether Torchwood is willing to employ writers who can deal with the realities of meshing pregnancy and childrearing with the pace and drama of a sci fi series...

Think about it.
Children of Earth ends with Jack disappearing into the cargohold of a star cruiser (very Ford Prefect) and Gwen six months pregnant.

In my own pregnancy, I had bad morning sickness nausea and could not have spent my pregnancy running.  especially not in the designer high heels that are de rigeur for women in sci fi.  Oh, and also your centre of gravity shifts, you sweat more, can't wear underwired bras and your feet grow. So poor old Gwen would be sweating along in birkenstocks rather than charging along in Laboutins...

Even if the writers can cope with pregnancy, which usually just means strapping an actress into a fat-tummy suit for a bit, few I think could cope with the idea of writing to combine working for a secret organisation defending the world from aliens and the realities of childrearing. 
Possibly Stephen Moffat could, but he's over on Doctor Who rather than Torchwood.
It has, I think, great potential as a subplot: if being the one with the husband is the line that keeps Gwen anchored in the real world, being a mum has even bigger "real world" challenges.  You've got the physical and mental exhaustion, time management, finding childcare when you needed it (unless Torchwood pays enough for Rhys to be a stay at home dad, and if his ego could cope with it), actually missing your child and worrying about them almost more than your own safety no matter what situation you face, not "being there" forsignificant events... And they're inquisitive little things - the chances of toddler Williams not finding mummy's gun or an unsuitable alien artifact must be miniscule?
Terry Pratchett touched on these sorts of themes in Carpe Jugulum when he gave Magrat a daughter, but in his story the baby was still small enough to be portable and didn't scream at inappropriate moments. 

Russell T Davis said that he conceived Torchwood as female-friendly science fiction.  Well, I challenge you Mr Davis, prove it.  Show us that a female lead can be a wife and mother and still do a vital job for the good of humankind on some sort of basis.
If Torchwood is over and having a baby was Gwen's closure, as running away for a new life in the stars could well be for immortal Jack, you do us a massive disservice.
If you don't think you can do it, then just email me and I'll write those bits for you. Must be elemens of the writer's job I could do largely from home and combine with raising a child or two?
And besides, with new viewers c/o the finale of series 4 Doctor Who and Children of Earth, would you really kills off a successful franchise?    ]]>

urn:uuid:c3c3be29-2ffb-4e14-e658-20cf33fae557 2009-06-17T16:39:26-04:00

the dishonesty in the EU debate.  I've responded on his blog, but wanted a chance to write a bit more than is really acceptable when commenting on someone else's blog - I was pushing it as it was!

The Nosemonkey piece was in response to the Economist's Charlemagne who complains that his column questioning whether the EP should have more power has had him characterised in the readers comments an an English nationalist advocating EU withdrawal.  For what it is worth, I tihnk Charlemagne has a tendancy towards the sceptical in his columns, but they are still eminently readable because they start from a position of some knowledge and understanding of the EU and how it works. 

It’s not eurosceptic to question what the EP is for, what it achieves and whether we want it to do more, or less, it’s the action of mature democrats.

But equally the maturity in the debate requires that, if it makes sense for something that we want to do is best done at European level, that we accept this rather than endlessly demanding that national level is best (e.g. CFP is a mess but in part its a mess because fish don't respect national boundaries so repatriation of fisheries policy is a very odd thing indeed to demand in comparison with root-and-branch reform of CFP at the European level).

I thought that the original thought behind the Convention on the future of Europe, and the subsequent Constitutional Treaty, was to be a full-on review and restructure to fit the needs of C21 Europeans. I guess we can say it failed in that (although its still not totally clear just why) and there are certainly some eccentricities in what is covered by European competence, in what way.

But wg's comments on Nosemonkey's blog illustrate the problem with looking for that debate in the UK.
Europhiles feel the need to talk up the EU and not talk so much about the problems although as Nosemonkey says most feel the EU is not perfect.

Unless there's someone out there to explain what good things we as a country get from being part of the EU, then the only impression that's out there to be gained is that the EU is some sort of exploitative pro-business force (which businesses dispute and has also given us lots of social legislation which they don't like but should actually be protecting the position of e.g. manual workers), only for the rich (in part because we in the UK don't make full use of e.g. ESF so people aren't aware of the benefits), and where having experience of the EU institutions is regarded with such suspicion that having a pension from the work they did there is considered enough to make their judgement in their new job questionable and would automatically exclude anyone with relevant work experience (by which logic no one that's ever worked for company X could ever work for company Y because their loyalty to their new employer might be compromised by their pension from X even though its the experience they gained there that qualifies them to take them on on behalf of company Y).

Or otherwise we can read what's in the press and what comes out of the politicians themselves (national with the agendas that come with that or EU where our media appears to have a habit of seeking out those with less moderate views).

In other words, how do we know its a costly mistake as wg says, or not a costly mistake but something that is the best place for Britain to be in the world unless we actually get a bit of honesty into the debate? Or actually even have a debate, given that those who would normally be on the radical fringes of this sort of discussion seem to be making all the running?

I'm not saying I know better that wg, who is completely entitled to his(?) view, but who can blame people for being sceptical after being told for so long that the EU is a remote, bureaucratic body that does things that even the national government doesn't try to force on people, over which victories are "won", where there's lots of corruption (as much if not more than Westminster it seems), where the visible face is less freedom to make cheaper phonecalls so much as new neighbours who are willing to work for less money and speak a different language, and that even its supporters question whether it is doing the right things or are seen as somehow having been corrupted?

And it’s always easier to listen to those shouting “EU, EU EU - out! out! out!” than to those saying “what do we want? A technical yet plain language discussion of the practical implications of the benefits and costs of addressing issues at different levels of political decision-making including European level, reappraisal of each and an institutional structure that faciliates this, accessible for and engaging with all! When do we want it? Within a reasonable timescale that allows for genuine debate without dragging on!”

Yep, I think we need a proper discussion.  And part of me goes, bring it on!
But I remain to be convinced that we are able to do that in the UK at present precisely because things have got so polemic and because a lot of people would frankly rather be watching Eastenders or the football. And despite being an EU geek, that sometimes includes me!
]]>

urn:uuid:e1563cd4-f2a5-39fd-afef-d319eea954d7 2009-06-09T14:08:19-04:00

This is the BBC coverage of the story.

The question is, does it make any difference that the new MEP is Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party who,despite securing a lower number of votes than in 2004 got a bigger share of the vote due to a terribly low turnout and secured the first two ever BNP seats in a nationwide election? 
It's nothing new for people with views that others consider abhorrent to stand for election and even gain power.  It's a sad thing that people share those views and vote for them, but even sadder that others did not care enough to turn out and vote.  More votes for, well, anyone else would've made a difference.
I really hope that all the supporters of Unite Against Fascism - who have pledged to do what they've done today whenever Griffin tries to speak in public - turned out and voted and so cannot find themselves to be partly responsible for the BNP success.

But the election of the BNP to represent the UK in the European Parliament tests our commitment to the Voltaire principles, that freedom of speech as a principle is more important than living in the sort of world where only that which is approved can be said, or: "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write", as Voltaire puts it.

I think I'm realising that one thing I get really animated about is democracy and threats to it, whether deliberate (as in via a political viewpoint) or accidental (through voter apathy and disengagement).  It matters who's in charge, and we have a responsibility as well as a right to put them there and hold them to account.
One argument I've seen made on this is that you can counter apathy by making it compulsory to vote, but including a "none of the above" option on the ballot paper.
I'm not sure that's ever really going to be enforceable - even countries like Belgium where voting is mandatory are not imprisoning the 10% or so of their populaiton that does not turn out as far as I'm aware - if you live there and read this, could you please let me know what the enforcement method is and whether it actually gets used?

But I digress. 
The fact that the BNP were able to secure MEP seats is being given by some commentators as a reason why "first past the post" is a better voting system than the varous forms of proportional representation that are available.
For the reason above, i.e. Voltaire principles, I find I have to disagree. 
A democratic system should be about ensuring that the voice of the demos, the people, is represented.
I may not agree with the views that the BNP hold (I vehermently disagree with it and hate, hate hate that they are trying to co-opt my religion as if they are its defenders which is absolute rubbish - Jesus was Middle Eastern Jewish the average Christian in the world is an African black woman in her 30s and I can't really see them as their champions, can you?). 
But why on earth should I therefore support a voting system that I know is by its very design going to mean that the views of fellow citizens which may even be held in great numbers will never get the chance to be represented? 
We're not even necessarily talking tiny fringe parties (like the English Democrats but actually they've just secured their first even Mayoral role!), we're talking the Lib Dems, and middle-weight political forces like the Green party and even UKIP.  
And independents too - an individual needs a massive campaign behind them to get elected under FPTP but potential much less under PR especially if there's a second preference vote, or vote transfer version (like STV) in place.

I guess the question that those of us living in democracies need to ask ourselves is whether we are going to allow our commitment to democracy to be threatened by our response to those that don't agree with us?  It won't be easy to stick wth the Voltaire line but I think, no, I believe we have to try. ]]>

urn:uuid:ac5f484b-9801-a108-0930-b8f06b2da242 2009-06-09T12:37:53-04:00

- Labour third nationally at 16%;
- BNP get two MEPs elected;
- Greens biggest winners in SW and SE (2 MEPs on relatively low % of vote);
- UKIP share of vote increases by less than 1% since 2005;
- Tories biggest winners of the night.
(thanks to Liberal Conspiracy for a neat summary!)

But what happens now?
Inevitably in the UK the question immediately turns back to the domestic political implications - whether the Prime Minister has lost enough authority that his cabinet will Thatcher him, whether the election of BNP county councillors and MEPs will mean that they can use this as a platform to spread their message further. 
David Cameron is in Cardiff (the pictures of him on the steps of the Assembly cleared up one mystery for us - we were in Cardiff bay at the weekend and thought that building was the assmebly building but there didin't seem to be any signage!) to celebrate the Conservatives overtaking the Labour Party to be the most popular party in Wales for the first time since 1918. 
And the journalist reporting it said: "even though these are only European elections..."

We don't learn - has anyone ever tried to teach us?
The presence of my toddler stopped me throwing anything at the screen. 
Throwing teddies isn't that satisfying and he'd only try to copy me in any case.
But honestly, people, "only European elections?"  Don't you realise?  It's not pro-European to vote in the elections to choose your representatives in the European Parliament, it's to realise the value of democracy! 

But as I've tried to point out before the public in the UK seem to take just this attitude.  
Trying to explain what the decision-making process is for European legislation seems just to make people's eyes glaze over, if they hear just a little they seem to decide it "a bad thing" and vote to the right.  In the increasingly globalised world it seems to be those advocating pulling up the drawbridge that can actually get their voters to turn out.
So, here's a challenge: let's get the truth out there. I'm not talking a pro- or anti-EU "version" I'm talking about an honest discussion of what decisions are made where and how, from parish council to UN, encompassing councils, Westminster and yes, EU.

Because that's the problem here, isn't it?  

I mean, I've got a pretty good idea but then I used to teach what's effectively constitutional politics (not that that seems to make a different to the newly elected BNP MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber who was described on the news as a politics lecturer but says that he aims to free the UK from the EU dictatorship which suggests less of a grasp of some political concepts than I would be happy with a politics lecturer possessing?).  but actually even some of my highly intelligent friends actually don't understand the different levels of governance, the way that decisions affecting their lives actually take place. 
We actually need the constitutional debate that would come with the exercise of trying to produce a written constitution, not because having everything in one place of itself helps a state to function, but because most of us over the age of about 25 have never really had anything in the way of a civic or political education and therefore don't "get" what our voting is actually doing.

Of course, a lot of people don't care, not just for lack of knowledge but because the goings on in Corrie, the Peter-and-Jordan divorce, fashion and the minutae of daily life are fulfilling enough, thanks.  Every so often something motivates us, like MPs expenses, but then the story becomes boring and the fact that Jordan's hired Paul McCartney's lawyer for her divorce seems really important again.  I guess that's the freedom democracy gives you - the right to not be interested... 
But my grandparents' generation fought fascism and as a woman I'm very aware of the Pankhursts and the other suffragettes that fought to get me the right to express my wishes in the democratic process - I owe them enough to take an interest.

Ok, back to reality for a second...  Let's take a look at five new EU realities, things that people need to think about - any EU blogging geek could've told them really but who'd've listened or cared:

1) the BNP will get public money via its elected representatives in the European Parliament that it can then spend on raising its profile and campaigning in more seats and with more materials. 
If as Nigel Farage says its very easy to amass over £2m over a term in the EP to spend on these things and running a constituency office, then we as a country need to think about the amount of money that we've just put into the hands of our whites-only nationalists.
Oops. That's quite an outcome from what so many people said was just a protest vote;

2) The UK is going to be without representation in the main centre-right bloc in the EP, the EPP which will be the biggest bloc in the EP.  
This is the bloc that will contain the MEPs from the parties of Merckel (Germany) and Sarkozy (France)  - biggest in terms of number and still the most influential centre-right European players despite EU enlargement.  
The size of the Conservative group from the UK would have made it a substantial player within the biggest bloc, which if allied to others of similar views within the bloc would have been able to direct the general direction of the overall group while also gaining key committee chiairmanships and key subject rapporteurships.  
Is there likely to be a practical disadvantage to the UK of there being no representation within this group?  Well, here's a thought: given the tide of regulation to come from the EU aimed at the City, by losing UK representation from the EPP, UK business could lose out because the risk is that in lobbying MEPs that have no link to them their concerns risk seeming like a parochial UK issue (or a great opportunity to benefit the in-Euro Frankfurt at the cost of the City of London?).

3) Some commentators are suggesting that setting up a new centre-right Eurosceptic group will give the Conservatives a new influential role within the EP. 
This might be the case if each of the six other new partner parties in the group brought a significant number of MEPs and the group were therefore able to secure a high number of the committee chairmanships and rapporteurships (the routes to power in the EP). 
If they don't, then it basically means that they'll be needing to try to strike deals on the issues of most importance to them - and accepting that there will be an overt price elsewhere too.
Forming a new and separate group also brings interesting implications for intergovernmental relations when, and it is surely a case of when, the Conservatives become the next UK government.  Relations within the EP are not divorced from the positions and partnerships that parties can make out there between governments.  The European political groups do actually meet up outside the EP, party to party to discuss things.  It's how the political groups are able to produce common manifestos for the European elections, but it goes a lot deeper that into shared thinking through of ideas. 
Forming a separate group effectively declares that you have more differences than commonalities and that you are perhaps not the automatic allies that you might otherwise have been.
Of course governments from different parts of the political spectrum do form effective alliances, they have to.  But to start from that position when you are ostensibly from the same part of the political spectrum could well be a disadvantage you might not otherwise have expected? 

4) Dennis McShane (former UK Europe minister and talking head of choice on Europe issues on UK TV) has noted that only 1/3 of British MEPs will be part of influential groups in the Parliament (that's the Lib Dems - with UK MEP Graham Watson potentially the most powerful Brit in the EP as head of the EP's liberal grouping, and the Labour Party sitting in the party of European Socialists).  that's going to be a ral difficulty when dealing with e.g. social issues from a UK perspective. 
As I pointed out in another posting, we've now voted ourselves into a position where a substantial number of our representatives will not be fully engaging in the processes of the EP in a way that enhances the interest of the UK on the subjects at hand (although I suspect UKIP would say that while not engaging on the subjects they were representing their constituents overall wish that there not be EU-level discussion on the issues at hand).

5) Is UK representation in the EP about to become a self-fulfilling prophesy? 
If you send people who believe that taking part in EP committees is useless, then their participation is unlikely to be of the highest quality, meaning less satisfactory legislation in that the UK point of view is not adequately represented, meaning that from a UK perspective the work of the committee is pretty useless.  Oops. Self-fulfilling prophesy.
My fear is that if we follow this through, in 5 years time UK parties will legitimately be saying that the EP is not producing anything of benefit to the UK... but it'll be our fault for electing people that helped that to be the case!  It's so frustrating!

Just as a postscript, last year, the Lib Dems in the UK said that they would not support a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon but would do so on the UK in or out of the EU. 
I thought this was barking - not because I don't think the question needs asking but because the quality of debate and knowledge on EU politics in the UK is so infantile. 
But yet it is also so arrogant because it assumes that there's no need to know anything and yet assume that it must be "a bad thing" or something we'd handle better as a floating player in the world with other alliances etc.(and yes I'm well aware that if you disagree with me you are probably thinking writing this is arrogant!) 
I have a policy of saying that if I get to a point of wondering "why isn't someone doing something about X?" then I need to finish that sentence "and that someone is me".  So I've started to challenge things if I see something that would benefit from challenge and explanation, like the EP committee comments. 
Partly because I enjoy doing it. 
But also because I fear that these European elections show where we are slowly sleepwalking, uninterested, unaware - not into a European superstate because realistically that's not on the agenda - it's a paper tiger to make us frightened of foreigners - but out of a strategic partnership that brings us huge benefits at the cost of having to agree with others how we do some things. 
And if only we'd embrace it we could lead the way - but we're now at risk of ending up trying to do so with the equivalent of one arm tied behind our back whilst hopping.  Why did we do this to ourselves?  Can it really be that we just didn't know any better?        ]]>

urn:uuid:8af915a3-adf4-278b-0901-ea367018a2b8 2009-06-02T17:43:34-04:00

Professor Niall Ferguson is speaking on this idea tonight and trailed his ideas on Radio 4's Today programme. 
His ideas didn't actually seem too far from what I've posted on here and what others are saying around the blogosphere - essentially:
- the recession as a background makes the MPs expenses scandal seem even more scandalous;
- we get the politicians we deserve in terms of how we are as a society; and
- in the tensions of a globalised recession plus loss of faith in our political system equals a potent powder keg...

So even the people that get paid to think about these things academically are thinking the same way.  Niall Ferguson talks about China leading the recovery (and notes that it's not a democracy) and also flags up the same thing that worries me - that people will turn to the extremes because they've lost faith in the big, mainstream parties.  

But the question is, once the problem has been diagnosed, what can be done about it?
What can anyone actually do to make it better?
Various politicians are suggesting a variety of solutions.  While it's easy to dismiss all of them and many in the press have done so, actually it's worth looking at some of these in a bit more detail.

Let's get the General Election issue out the way first.  There is certainly an argument for having one - when every MP is potentially going to have their expenses hung out to dry, every constituency wants to know whether their MP is worthy of their trust. 
But our constitutional system gives the Prime Minister the right to call the general election when s/he wants (or techincally to ask the monarch to dissolve parliament).
And we've no trigger mechanism - even losing a confidence vote in parliament wouldn't force an election.

Top of my list is Proportional Representation. 
The UK voting system is first-past-the-post, which effectively means that
The big lie about Proportional Representation is that it automatically equates to less personal contact between an MP and their constituents and with the enforced dominance of the main parties. 
The problem that we in England have when trying to explain PR is that the only experience that most people here have of PR is voting using the closed Party Lists that we have in the European Elections (which are taking place this Thursday).  But given the really low turnout how many people have even seen that? 
The European Elections Act is the UK way of implementing a decision of the Council of the Euorpean Union (of which we are part) that a PR system would be used to elect memebers of the European Parliament. But unlike many other Member States, the version we use puts power in the hands of the political parties - they choose who tops the list. So if you are a pro-European who leans to the Conservatives and lives in the south-east of England, if you vote Conservative Eurosceptic Daniel Hannan tops the list and would be the first beneficiary of your vote for his party even if his particular views were not quite to your taste and the views of others on the list fitted you better.  
PR does not have to be this way.  The open list system used in the Netherlands for example means that someone like Esther de Lange on the Christian Democrat list who might be relatively "safe" like Daniel Hannan in the UK has to actually get out there and get known to her voting public.
This is all getting a bit long so I'll post more on PR separately.  But I must just flag up my responses to the argument that it usually results in coalition governments as no one has an overall majority (frankly good because it means compromise has to be reached rather than one party's view imposed) and that it lets in more smaller parties including extremists (yes, but if people in full knowledge wish to vote for them then that's democracy).  Just waiting for someone to launch Project Hemicycle... 

A written constitution for the UK
Contrary to popular belief, we do actually have a written constitution. What we don't have is a codified constitution, that is, it's not all in one document. Our constitutional documents include the Bill of Rights 1688, the Parliament Act 1949, the European Communities Act 1976, the Human Rights Act, the Acts of Devolution and many other documents.
Writing our constitution down in one place would mean needing to sort out some of the little knots that we fudge at present.
We'd have to decide about what we want the House of Lords to look like, why there's a difference in the sort of devolution that we have in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, what our relationship with the European Union is and should be, how much role we want the monarchy to have. Then what about the English regions, an English parliament, Cornish independence...
The problem with sitting down to write a UK constitution, as far as I can see is in part one of buy-in.
We can't just write down what we've got - it's a mess. Besides, I'm not clear whether many people actually know what we have already - certainly the extent of our integration with the rest of the EU seems often to take people by surprise, at least Sun journalists.
It's not simply a matter of a committee of the great and the good sitting down and coming up with the text (as we tried in the Convention on the future of Europe which got together representatives of governments, parliaments, social partners and civil society and came up with a constitution). Others will have strong views too (we learned this from the Convention's minority reports, and the fact that afterwards the governments went away and wrote a much weaker version - the Constitutional Treaty - and even this was rejected by voters in the Netherlands and in France, two founding members of the EU, but NOT despite what the antis in the UK would have you believe because they wanted less Europe but because they wanted geater social protection - the bit the antis here seem to most despise!)
But without the deadlines that e.g. the need to rebuild a constitution after civil war imposes, there's a risk either of the process getting bogged down in seemingly intractable problems or attempting to steamroller without giving proper consideration to the issues.
Also at present no parliament can bind the next.  A written constitution would change this, just a bit, but it would set something above merely the will of the next group of elected representatives.
Oh, and it would give us the chance to think about disestablishment of the Church of England.
None of this is to say that we shouldn't have a written constitution - just that this is in no way a short term project or quick fix.


Right of recall
One short-term, high impact measure would be to introduce constituency recall for MPs. The idea behind this, which is already in force in the USA, is the idea of "recall". In the UK at present, unless an MP dies, goes to jail or is sent to the House of Lords/ to be an ambassador, European Commissioner etc. then that MP is the MP for the consitutency for the whole term. Even if they do something about which a substantial number of constituents object, there's nothing they can do. Recall would allow a certain number of constituents e.g. 5 % to recall an MP and trigger a by-election. If we had this mechanism, constitunets annyed with their MP over the expenses claims would be able to express this right now with the individual themselves being held accountable rather than taking it out on the candidates for the local or European elections.

There's a tonne of other options too:
- fixed term parliaments (pro: Prime Ministers can't choose the optimal timing for the next election, con: the first year is a slow build-up, then a couple of years of competence, then a final year of electioneering);
- proper Lords reform: there's an outstanding vote in the House of Commons in favour of a fully elected chamber - there's all sorts of reasons given for that vote e.g. that it was the least worst of the options put forward in the debate, but the current situation with the rump of the hereditaries hanging on and the rest appointees of the current or previous Prime Ministers is surely untenable;    
- reducing the number of constituencies: I can't remember the precise stat, but we've a huge number of elected representatives at national level who - given the increased role of the EU and proposals for devolving power to the regional or local level is just a nonsense. Backbenchers write lots of letters on behalf of their constituents, yes, they might also scrutinise legislation on a committee, but they've a less significant role than the MEPs we're about to elect.  I can't honestly see why we need so many;
- ending the guillotine: a bit esoteric this one, but it is possible that one thing that could really make things better is proper scrutiny of legislation.  Unlike the EU where every sentence is pored over, sometimes whole chunks of legislation is never scrutinised because time runs out.  More importantly though, the government can set a timetable for debate, which it's argued can increase the quality of debate.  But although specialist parliamentary lawyers and dedicated civil servants have worked night and day to produce as near to a finished piece of legislation as possible, this doesn't mean there should be less scrutiny of it - that is after all what we send our MPs to parliament for - to hold the government to account.

So what do you want?

The price of getting this wrong is potentially enormous.  While smaller parties per se are not a bad thing (as I've tried to explain above), unless something pretty serious is done and quickly, the worst case scenarios are turning into the Weimar Republic , or fragmentation of society.  Neither scenario really appeals to me.

What do you think?
]]>

urn:uuid:56288612-68f6-b819-9b19-3c88aa435797 2009-06-02T12:49:23-04:00

Has anyone else noticed that the basic assumption behind calling for a referendum seems to be that there would inevitably be a "no" vote?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8078637.stm]]>

urn:uuid:2d61647d-e43f-3fb4-cefc-fe6b560b8393 2009-06-02T08:24:13-04:00

Your son decides he wants the car.  He goes over and pushes my son, who ignores him.
Your son attempts to hit him on the head.
My son, quite reasonably, puts his hand out to stop himself being clonked over the head and your gets his mouth round my son's fingers and bites down.  Hard.

I've seen this from where I'm talking to one of the other mums. 
I run over, but not in time to stop your son grabbing a handful of my son's rather sparse curls and pulling.  The scream is loud enough to be heard over the general hubub of the playgroup.
I run over and kneel down.
"What", I say as I separate my son's fingers carefully from your son's mouth, "is going on here?"
I rub my son's rather dented fingers and I say to your son:
"You do NOT bite people's fingers.  It's not nice.  How would you feel if someone had bitten your fingers? You wouldn't like it would you?"
I'm quite good at restrained anger when children are involved.  Practice with my son suggests getting properly angry has no discernable benefit over responding calmly so why upset yourself and them when you can calm down the situation?

Your son attempts again to push mine out of the toy car. 
I've not managed to remove my son from it yet because he tends to make his legs stiff when he's upset and it's nigh on impossible to ger him out. 
Besides, he was in the car in the first place and your toddler is trying to bully him out of it.  That's not on. I tell him no.
I did not touch him or manhandle him in any way - although frankly the imperative that most mothers feel to get to your own child when they're hurt and screaming is very strong and I had to make a conscious effort not to chuck him out the way to get to mine.

You come rushing over, clutching your precious son to you just as I have with mine as he's now crying from being told no. 
You appear to be under the impression that it's my son that's hurt yours when the bite marks are fairly obvious for all to see and frankly quite a lot of people are aware of what's happening. 
I explain, in a slightly exasperated manner I explain that no, it's your son that bit mine, and ripped out his hair.  All I've done is tell him no when he attempted to do so again and actually I'm quite cross about it.

I remove my son and take him for a cuddle.  I rub his fingers for a bit and try to distract him with another activity.  He's hurt and upset and frankly who can blame him.  
He doesn't have brothers or sisters, so he's not used to toddler-on-toddler violence of that type.  Your son is your second child - perhaps that's what they're like together?  Certainly that's what the mums who come over to see if Adam's ok say - it's always the second one that bites as firstborns don't need to.

But do you know what's really annoyed and upset me? 
You come over to me later.  I'm not quite sure what you're expecting.  
Are you wanting to see if my son's ok or are you vaguely expecting me to apologise for telling your son not to hurt mine? 
I get the impression it's the latter - you say that I should be cross with you not him as he's only one year old and you storm off. 
In fact you leave the playgroup before snacktime and no one does that normally.

Actually we've spoken before - your son is almost exactly the same age as mine, he's just twice the size as mine's rather tiddly. 
If my child had bitten yours, I'd expect you to tell him not to do it in the same polite manner that I did. 
I hope that you left the playgroup today because you had another appointment and not because you are either cross with the way I handled today's toddler situation or because you're embarrassed at your own handling of it.  Toddlers do these things. 
My point was not to overreact.  
But now I'm properly cross about it because of your attitude.  May be it'd be a good idea if in future you tell your son that biting is not a nice thing to do rather than winding up the mother of the bite-ee?
  ]]>

urn:uuid:b182d05c-9505-f802-0b52-87974209f9f6 2009-05-26T14:07:12-04:00

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fv0uHWxhLgs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fv0uHWxhLgs&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>]]>

urn:uuid:4b5f64d8-dadf-3fd8-2dff-085d7788fe2e 2009-05-26T13:56:11-04:00

Basically the debate in the UK has been so far from a sensible discussion about how decisions are made in the EU (of which the UK is part and from which a substantial part of UK law is directly applicable), that it has barely seemed worth it.

And besides, it's starting to be practically impossible to be pro-EU and not party political which of course I try not to be.
Other bloggers are slogging away, trying to counter the wave of ridiculous rubbish that's being talked about Europe in the UK - Nosemonkey in particular, despite his own antipathy towards the way the EU works in practice, wants the debate to be accurate (£40m a day??? What planet do they think we're on if they think we're going to swallow that sort of figure without question? Thank God for people like Nosemonkey that dig away to find out). You should also check out his post on why a vote for UKIP last time round proved not to be a vote for a squeaky clean collection of individuals. Noticed William Hague using some of the same material on Question Time on the BBC some days later...

My big fear and worry is that people simply don't care.
They don't care that they're being told things that simply aren't accurate because they don't really understand the context.
My concern is that people think that the European elections are a consequence-free environment in which to give the established Westminster political parties a bloody nose.
That it's just another poll and a chance to express discontent.
It's not.

Think about this logically.
If "80%"
(8% according to the House of Commons Library, 40% if you look at it in the round from various sources and 80% if you only look at single market legislation from BERR)
of UK legislation is "imposed by the EU"
(i.e. negotiated legislation made by the UK and 26 other Member States' governments along with the European Parliament which includes UK MEPs and the Commission which has UK staff and a UK Commissioner, and is scrutinised by the parliament at Westminster during its development, and which is then implemented in UK law through secondary legislation under the European Communities Act 1976)
then it makes sense to choose as your representatives in the European Parliament people who will do their best to work within the system to get the legislation developed in the way that best fits your interests.
You're getting these people for a 5 year fixed-term!  That's a pretty substantial consequence for a slap in the face to the main politicla parties...

But if it's just a talking shop then there's no point, is there? No need to worry?
No. Because that's part of the problem.
The antis tend to want to portray the EP as toothless and corrupt but the EU as all powerful (witness the as yet unchallenged assertion that if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force there will be no point voting for Westminster as an unelected elite will be running everything from Brussels).
But about 80% of actual legislation at EU level is codecided: that is, the EP as the directly elected representatives of the populations of the member states deciding the final shape of the legislation on equal terms with the governments of the Member States via the Council.
What your representatives do there matters, probably more than the work that a backbench MP at Westminster does in terms of personal capacity to achieve legislative change.

Sending people to the European Parliament to vote "no" to everything, even things that might be of benefit to us, is pointless.
Especially since, until the Lisbon Treaty with its specific withdrawal methods comes into force, all you have to do is repeal that 1976 European Communities Act I mentioned before.

I'm genuinely interested to know whether there's anyone out there who actually knows about how the EU works in practice, how this coincides with the UK's general interests and is still a "UK out" person?
It's often seemed to me in the past that the argument for "UK out" is that "we" are noble, uncorrupt and special and superior and once ruled two thirds of the globe and therefore could reassert this in some way and not need to be tied in with the rest of the "them". But given that the news from Westminster seems to show "we" are no better than "them", I can't really see this holding water any more?
The left argue that "flexicurity", antiprotectionism and othe labour market issues are along the lines of Victorian attitudes in the UK so the EU has a right-wing agenda - hence "no2eu". The right argue that working hours, minimum holiday, parental leave and health and safety issues are evidence of an overt socialist agenda gainst the UK's interests and the rights of a person to spend as long working to make money for their family as they damn well please.
Environmentalists argue that the EU does not go far enough in protecting the environment from harmful chemicals, businesses that there's green militancy in the EU castrating business.
In other words, if the extremes of both sides of an argument are getting annoyed is there not a chance that the EU's getting it about right?

Of course I don't want the EU to be the UK's least worst option, I want to know that its in our best interests.
Its almost impossible to quantify at present the impact of withdrawal, the extra difficulty we'd face globally in negotiation, in getting things decided in a way acceptable to us without the weight of 26 others.
We don't know what we could negotiate as trade tarriffs, or work agreements for our citizens, not just with our former EU partners but also in the wider world.
I'm not sure it'd be a given that it'd be favourable, nor that e.g. the Commonwealth would welcome with open arms a UK that had voluntarily cut itself adrift from the EU and looking for a new gang to be part of and, ideally, lead.
And just who would be negotiating all this? There's so much criticism from the antis of UK civil servants only liking the EU because it gives them power without responsibility (too stupid to be corrupt said one commentator), but surely it'd be these same civil servants that would have to be trusted to negotiate all of this (unless the antis actually naively believe that politicians do all of the negotiating from scratch themselves? But then as above, our politicians are not genenrally considered paragons of virtue any longer are they?)

But if you are voting - and I urge you to do so because we live in a democracy but as I've recently been reminded in the UK that's a privilege not a right, and with our uncodified constitution our only protections come primarily from the Human Rights Act (which and unforgivably high number of people seem to think is a BAD thing and newspapers campaign to be removed from the statute books) and from the terms of the UK's EU membership (rule of law, no death penalty etc.) - please try to remember what this vote is about.

If you care about tackling climate change, food prices, safe toys, being able to go on holiday where you want without your mobile phone calls costing a fortune, tackling terrorism etc., these are not things that we can do by ourselves.
I think we need partners working with us, not just alliances that are only there when its essential and trying to get one over us the rest of the time.

Ultimately, the EP elections should not be about moral deficiencies at Westminster, or even about EU withdrawal as that's only obtainable via Westminster. It should be about getting the people into the European Parliament that can deliver the results you want in the legislation that affects your life: if Westminster's all schools and hospitals (for the English at least) then the EU's your environment, international transport, consumer goods, animal welfare etc. etc. Try to keep that in mind please and don't let's land ourselves with extremists or people who vote "no" even when a "yes" actually fits the day to day lives of the people they are supposed to represent.  besides, I'm no good at cleaning behind fridges - I'm better at politics...
In all likelihood you can give Westminster a bloody nose next year in a general election...

]]>

urn:uuid:29122905-1bfd-771e-5177-196d81edd06e 2009-05-15T19:11:44-04:00

"Power without responsibility: the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages"
Somehow this has become my phrase of the week...

Power without responsibility I - politics
If you're following the story in the news, you're probably aware that our MPs seem to be somewhat divorced from the real world. 
As a commuter on my train yesterday put it:
"they've claimed money that they say was within the rules at parliament, yeah, but looks a bit dodgy. So they write a cheque to pay it back.  Now come on.  They can afford to write a cheque for what 15, 20 grand straight off? And they think that makes them look MORE in touch with what life's like for the rest of us?"
I think most of us would love to find ourselves so financially secure that we'd no idea when we'd finished paying off our mortgage.  
I think it's the fact that these expenses claims are being revealed against a background of recession, job losses and tax rises which makes it seem even more unreasonable and discourteous to the public.
But I'm not going to go into the details of MPs expenses. I know it's not exactly party political (seems to cut across most parties in Westminster actually), but I still feel uncomfortable given that I'm also public sector.

Power without responsibility II - personal irresponsibility
But I can't just leave this subject out of my blog entirely, give the Christian perspective I try to bring to issues of the day via writing this.
I mean, come on, where's the sense of personal responsibility gone? 

I very much dislike the culture of this-is-how-it's-done-here on morally suspect use of taxpayers' money, not least because it is my tax money that's funding it (yes, we in the public sector do actually pay tax.  I know that surprises some people).
I find it astonishing the number of people in parliament who seem to be able to suspend any sense of questioning whether their approach is extravagant because "everyone's doing it".  

But then, I live in a country with fantastically high levels of personal debt because we've been persuaded by advertising that we're nothing if we don't have not just a TV but the latest, largest flatscreen digital TV (check out the current TV advertising for companies offering this sort of thing "for everyone" - I guess that's everyone that prizes having it over the small print that says it's 29.9% APR...).   
We complain about our MPs having a sense of entitlement to an extravagant lifestyle at our expense, but are we absolutely sure we'd be any different if it was us?  Are we certain we'd hold back, even if the Fees Office told us we were entitled?
I know I hold back and have not always claimed for everything I've technically been entitled to claim on expenses.  

Power without responsibility III - the media
... or the art of dramatic overstatement...
I don't particularly like the high moral position that journalists are taking towards the issue.
 
The Daily Telegraph was the paper that broke this story.  It appears to be continuing to refuse to say whether the information they're putting out "in the public interest" was stolen or how much they paid for it.  They call it protecting their sources, the prerogative of the press. 
As Menzies Campbell pointed out on BBC "Question Time" last night, there's an irony in that position and calling for "transparency" from politicians. 
Of course that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be transparency on the MPs expenses, just that it seems a bit hypocritical.

The Rudyard Kipling / Stanley Balwin quote I used at the top of the page is actually quite applicable to the media.  I can't help feeling that there's almost a sense of childish joy, of how far can we push this, how much power have we, the press, got?  

Look at Robert Peston, the man who broke Northern Rock.  Fantastic story, great exclusive.  I just wonder how much endless nights of TV pictures of scared investors trying to withdraw their money led to more scared investors and then the end result became inevitable?  
Did the responsibility to tell the public that story outweigh any kind of responsibility to give the powers that might have been able to find other solutions a chance to do so? Did 24-hour news pressurise the situation and make one result more inevitable than another?

  
Power without responsibility IV - they've all got their snouts in the trough... and the law of unintended consequences...
But I'm worried about the "public" response to this expenses scandal.  Many people interviewed on TV seem to be of the view that politiciains should face criminal charges for the expenses they've claimed.  who knows, if they've got it wrong on taxes etc. there's a possiblity some could.  But claiming expenses does not of itself mean that politicians should go to jail...
We no longer live in a deferrential society.  We no longer give respect as a matter of course (for example in today's letters page in London Lite newpaper readers were asking why SHOULD we pay for police protection for junior royals to go out and be sick on the paparazzi just because they're royal?) 
We now believe respect has to be earned. And can be lost.  In that context, politicians are no longer automatically to be considered worthy of respect per se. 
But  with so many MPs losing the respect of the public, is parliament the institution at risk of losing our respect?

What happens when we think they're all as bad as each other, when we get cynical aobut mainstream politics, when the situation continues to be stoked up by the media with power but no responsibility other than to increase readership or viewing figures? 
What are the consequences - intended or unintended - of that?
What about the impact on democracy, the rule of law, lessons from the Weimar republic and the EU as our reference points?
More in my next posting...

But I leave you with this thought...
Terry Pratchett has written that "Probably the last sound heard before the Universe folded up like a paper hat would be someone saying "What happens if I do this?"" (please do read Terry Pratchett, he's hilariously funny and you might accidentally learn something about life in amongst the trolls and wizards).
It'd be nice to believe that our economy and our political system might be more robust and that a sense of responsibility from all parties might kick in before it all reaches paper hat stage. I guess we've just got to wait and see.]]>

urn:uuid:df18990b-3189-6715-63d8-7d0a6de4ed3a 2009-05-06T17:16:59-04:00

Things are different there, but somehow a bit the same.  It's that end-of-regime time, the run up to the European Parliament elections and the change of Commission, that funny sort of time where there's deals to be made but also a sense of winding down, waiting for the changes at the top.  I recognise it - it was just like that in 2004 when I was there.
But I wasn't there to work, this time.

We were there for my friend's wedding, and it was fabulous.  We saw some people we knew when we were living there, and made some new friends that we'll go to visit. 
But the question was there, hanging in the air: "when are you coming back to Brussels?"

We went for a walk around the area we used to live - 1000, city centre.  My husband described it as "edgy".  I felt less safe than when we lived there - there was more grafitti, more boarded up shops, even more blatant adult emporia. But then one of our guests got mugged on our doorstep when we lived there so it was hardly leave-your-doors-open time even five years ago.  But close to the best places to go out and a 10-15 minute commute to work in the mornings.

And we realised that we've grown up.

Really it should've been obvious.  We've got married, had a baby, we're looking at moving out the city suburbs to the provinces.  We're too tired to club til the wee hours, our toddler stops the lie-ins til noon.

So we also had a little look at the bits of Brussels we might live in if ever we were able to go back.  Terveuren.  Auderghem.  Outskirts of Brussels with nice little villagey centres or close to the decent schools.  No more 10-15 minute commute, even if we moved back.

At the moment there's no real possibility of getting back there. 
The best way's as a civil servant, but my husband's now in the private sector with no obvious Belgian route. 
And I'm working part-time - and that's impossible to sell to a new employer in this market, let alone one overseas.  
It wouldn't be ideal for our parents who want to see their grandson regularly, and would decrease the support they could give me if we have another child.
And yet, and yet.
Something's calling.
Will we someday manage to move back to Brussels?   ]]>

urn:uuid:baa66c10-210e-a81d-a1b3-eaad24692286 2009-04-23T18:26:16-04:00

And in effect, how do you get to be one?

EU blogger Julien Frisch has written an excellent post on the self-referential nature of the EU blogosphere, that many of the bloggers are starting to get to know each other in real life as well as talking to each other online and the fact that its deeply saturated in EU constitutional geekery.  

I'm wondering if, in addition to my self-censorship because I rather enjoy my job and don't want to blog on anything that might affect that, being female is an aspect that would keep me outside the circus of EU geeks. 
I notice that other women bloggers are also active in commenting on the EU but are outside the circus (check out Antonia at Talking about the EU - but as she's employed by an EU institution maybe she's not citisen blogger enough? Or simply doesn't want to or have time to spend all her free time commenting on other EU blogs?)
Of course, my blog is not just about the EU - my faith-based posts seem to get pretty high ratings (but so far nothing beats how to choose a wedding dress, and the perfect Valentine's menu... French food beat Italian by quite some way...)

Just to show how self-referential some of this can be, here's my response :

Yes the EU blogosphere is geeky - let's face it, it's online, and it covers subjects that are either passionately cared about or totally beyond the interest or possibly even comprehension of non-geeks... surely that's the definition of geekery.

If there's a place to discuss EU constitutional issues etc., float ideas, challenge misapprehensions etc. then I'm happy ;)

Bruno's right to identify the gap - where's the discussion of what 90%-odd of what the EU actually does, the technocratic detailed Directives? No, wait, if it's jam it's over there on Nosemonkey's blog.
The point is that actually the fact that technical issues are discussed at EU level does not mean that people interested in the institutional/constitutional issues are going to discuss them. For example, people interested in the environment are blogging on that elsewhere, it doesn't matter at which political level the discussion is taking place because if you're passionate about the subject you'll talk about it whether it's local riverbanks in Coughton or endocrine disruption in the Rhine.
Transport geeks might well be blogging on discussions on air policy that take place at EU level- or not, given that Council working groups are closed shops and EP discussions can be interminable. I should know.

But if you're on the outside (or at least the outskirts) like me the fact that the circus is so self-referential can be a bit off-putting.
What if you're pro-EU but think Barroso's not so bad actually?
What if you don't understand why some people capitalise the EU bit of EUrope?
And what if you blog on the EU and equally on the EU and other issues - how geeky is geeky enough?

]]>

urn:uuid:6cfffdcd-b2b9-7a0b-8a7b-320cb7242340 2009-04-23T18:08:34-04:00

The system proposed (on which there are few details beyond what appeared in the PM's podcast over on the Downing Street website) appears to be based on the system used at the European Parliament.  That'd be the system that journalists are constantly "uncovering" as scandalous with some MEPs turning up, signing in for the allowance and then going away again?  Hmm. 

I've just seen Nigel Farage on the news tonight talking about MEPs allowances.  He claims that hardworking MEPs that spend time in their constituencies and their own countries rather than "sitting in useless committees" are discriminated against.

I think he's right. In part.
Now that's something you may never have expected to read on this blog.

I'm not sure that it's always completely vital for the most effective members of parliaments to be spending all of their time actually inside the parliament building.  Representing your constituents' interests may actually be more effectively done by something other than being in the chamber listening to a debate on an issue that does not really affect them.
When the House of Commons was televised for the first time, there was a general complaint from the public and the press that the chamber always seemed to be nearly empty.  What were allthe MPs doing when they should be there, easily visible on TV?
it's easy to try to judge your MPs performance by the amount of time spent in the chamber, but actually MPs got wise to the television age.  Julie Kirkbride, a backbench Conservative MP (and rather amusing after dinner speaker I gather) speaks of being asked to be in the "donut", that's a knot of tightly packed MPs sitting around the main speakers in a debate to make it look on TV as if the whole chamber is filled without necessarily needing to speak or intervene- which of course is a valuable use of a backbencher's time, isn't it?

But there's a difference between being a donut in the chamber and being a member of a committee actually scrutinising legislation. 
Scrutiny of legislative proposals is what being a parliamentarian is all about - "parliament" may come from the word "parler", to talk or debate, but parliament is the "legislative" part of the state set up (normally described as executive, legislative and judicial) and therefore time spent going through the detail of legislation in committee is not an optional extra, it's actually one of the major reasons for having a parliamentary representative, not just having a local celebrity of sorts.

So I think Nigel Farage is right that being at the parliament (whether it is the European Parliament or the Westminster parliament) is not necessarily the best way to be an effective representative. 
But being an active committee member, scrutinising legislation, is not in itself useless.  And particularly not in the European Parliament where - under the co-decision decision-making system - the Parliament holds 50% of the decision-making power and under the EP committee system an individual MEP with a particular interest can propose amendments, and give a justification for it (which is published online and readily accessible for interested constituents).  There's no equivalent in Westminster for rapporteurs, that's normal MEPs that can draft the Parliament's response to a piece of draft legislation, reframing it as they wish, incorporating any elements that they feel would be beneficial to the EU as a whole, brokering the deals with the Council and the Commission as well as within the Parliament that enable a finished piece of legislation to be agreed and come into law across 27 Member States (and often other countries too such as the EEA members).  That's one powerful role for someone that's just sitting on a "useless committee".

I think that there may well be "useless committees" in the EP, but I doubt that they're not the ones dealing with the technical, co-decided legislation. 
It's more likely the ones that deal with areas in which the EP has little or no actual power which, for some reason, seem to be incredibly popular with MEPs, perhaps because they're seen to be big picture politics (the committees dealing with international relations issues in particular). 
Assuming that I'm not going to accept the answer "all of them", which EP committees are the most useless ones? 
 ]]>

urn:uuid:dddec5c9-a269-d138-12e0-751d8ffbbfd0 2009-04-13T17:37:39-04:00

We've spent ages thinking about where to go for a romantic weekend away and have finally settled on... Cardiff!
Wales is, in my experience, wet.  Most of the time.  Rhod Gilbert - a rather fantastic out of breath stand up comic - plays on his welshness saying "I was eight before I realised you could takew a cagoule off!"  Well, I've only spent a few days in Wales and I got soaked on every single one of them.
So why go to Cardiff? My husband suggested it - he'd found a boutique hotel owned by John Malkovich that he wanted to go to. 
Actually we're not going to stay there now, in the end we found somewhere by the bay that better fitted our needs.
But Cardiff itself now has the most effective tourist advertisement available - Doctor Who and Torchwood are filmed by BBC Wales in and around Cardiff.  We've seen some very beautiful places, we've seen Roald Dahl Plass and the redeveloped waterfront at Cardiff bay, the castle, Bute park... and there's a Doctor Who exhibition too.
So it's a bit of a geek's pilgrimage.
And I'm so happy! 
 ]]>

urn:uuid:c3574b92-1b23-9286-d6dd-9eb3d85724a2 2009-04-08T19:26:20-04:00

Mine won't be the only Christian response, but as these were the stories that left my husband and I getting annoyed with the radio this morning... given there's a whole world of politics out there, that takes some doing.  Must've been a slow news day.

The first story was actually pretty horrible when you think about it - it was pretty much religion wastes your taxes and might be an element in your hospital being dirty. 

The NHS spends £32m a year on hospital chaplains of many denominations.  The spokesman for the National Secular Society (that's the same body with an advert in this week's New Statesman magazine with an advert that says if you want religious freedom to support them... as if those of us with a faith are going to prefer a secular worldview where religion is solely in the private sphere and no one can express their faith publically?) said that it was more like £40m.  He suggested that the choice people should be given was between having these chaplains or having more nurses and hospital cleaners.  
If I got the underlying message right were they really saying have a clean, secular hospital in which to recover or a dirty one with chaplains in  which to meet your maker more quickly?

Now, I don't know if you've spent much time in hospital.  Even in the nicest, cleanest hospital with the friendliest staff, if you have a child that's been admitted like we did... I'm fairly strong-willed and strong-minded but well, if the National Secular Society supporters can cope without moments of prayer when in that stressful a situation, then they must be stronger of mind than me. 
Praying with someone and prayer support may initially be a bit odd-sounding but in a situation like ours one evening last autumn, it can be the most welcome thing in the world.

In its efforts to fillet out religion from every element of public society, the National Secular Society is positioning itself as saving money for the NHS. 
They say that if people want religion, said the spokesman, the churches and mosques should pay for it, and not the state - local religious establishments should staff the hospitals so that the people who go there know the ministers they see.  Because obviously its only those that regularly attend services that would actually want to see a minister, isn't it?

There's nothing wrong with the NSS raising this - the NSS is a secular society that believes that there's no only no place for a state religion (so disestablish the Church of England - actually a lot of us within the CofE would support that too) but no place for any religion at all in manifestations of the state, such as schools or hospitals. I just rather disliked the tone in which it was done.

The NHS has taken the opposite approach, seeking to provide the spiritual support that people in hospital as possible, hence the availability of people from different religions - I understand most hospital chaplains are rushed off their feet - so there does seem to be some demand for what they provide.
The NHS spokesperson said that they are "committed to the principle of ensuring that NHS patients have access to the spiritual care that they want, whatever faith or belief system they follow".  So there's no need for humanists to worry - sounds like the inclusive approach means that if they need someone to talk to to assure them that they've made a difference in the world and that there's nothing beyond but dissapating heat energy and cooling meat, then that should also be available to them. 

By the way, not all non-believers think prayer support is nonsense - and this one, a medical ethicist writing on the BBC website, notes the valuable role that chaplains bring in terms of holistic care, remembering that patients are people not just illnesses and bringing comfort.
But its also looking to remove religion from the very places where its needed - where people are facing fear, bad news, and contemplating mortality, where the things that might be bothering them about religion stop being an abstract argument or something that can happily be left, pushed away and not thought about and actually really start to matter for them. 
---- 

The second story is one that's been bobbing along for a while: "debaptism".  According to the rather excellent blog the church mouse, there's a real rush on for official "debaptism  certificates" from the National Secular Society - yep, that's them again- 100,000 at £3 a pop.

The idea of debaptism is simple - if you were baptised as a Christian as a child, there's no way out of it, no formal way of having it exponged from the church records if you don't grow up to have Christian faith. So the NSS is providing a way to do it "officially". 
Given that the fundamental position of atheism is that none of this religious stuff matters and its a waste of space, you'd think that most people would just leave it as that - something from their childhood, laughable superstition with no relevance to them now.  But it seems that leaving things be isn't enough for a significant number of people these days.  

I've blogged before on the rights and wrongs of child baptism, and our decision to baptise our child, and I hope he'll never regret it.  It's for him to find his own relationship with God and with the world, to find that he's loved - all we can do is try to set the best example we can.

For what it's worth, I don't think those getting debaptised have much to worry about anyway. 
My home group has been doing the parables this last term, and we all found the parable of the 10 virgins (Matthew 25:1) very unsettling. We don't know what's going to happen at the end of the world (or indeed whether climate change, war or meteor might be the method), but I can't help feeling that an infant baptism that you didn't choose and has had no meaning in how you've tried to live your life will not be a massively important factor in whatever happens.  Debaptism is like those punk badges in the 70s "Jesus died for his sins not mine" - a big red arrow saying that you don't only not belief but you want to point it out in case God might miss it...

But the church mouse is right that it's grassroots campaigns not dictats from on high that gain momentum. So let's put some thought into this one - what's the best way to show what's important in our lives as christians?  A paper certificate reminding us? No? Then what?
Oh - we're out doing it: visiting old ladies, helping neighbours, running playgroups, spreading a little happiness into the lives of those people tend to avoid...  
   ]]>

urn:uuid:934c5686-73a0-5c4a-139c-f54d728834f4 2009-04-07T08:36:08-04:00

Any oe out there know a bit more about what this actually means politically or for the EU (the Czechs have the EU council Presidency)?
http://www.neurope.eu/articles/93939.php]]>

urn:uuid:3edf1ea0-c082-e991-344c-ca1158f551bd 2009-03-31T18:13:00-04:00

Our Prime Minister - Gordon Brown - is interested in the issue and has tried to raise it repeatedly since 2005.  And he and journalist Matthew d'Ancona have a book coming out on Britishness.  But, as was pointed out on Radio 4 this morning,  the problem with a politician raising the issue is that it politicises the issue: it says Britishness is important and what I say is inherently what Britishness is about (the NHS, low taxes, innovation... put your own political preference here).

But part of the problem is that Britishness is pretty much undefinable at the moment.  When asked people mumble things about fair play, stiff upper lips... well, they do if they're English.  And that's the thing - it's quite easy to come up with the stereotypes for England, Scotland, Wales etc. but much harder to stereotype what British is.

There's not much in the way of symbols of Britishness.  Ok we have the monarchy (and the answer to the Scots nationalists who say the Queen is English is that actually she's of German origin and her husband is Philip of Greece!  But her kids were educated in Scotland and the prized palace is at Balmoral...), and citizenship ceremonies (for new British people who have passed the new citizenship tests) include swearing alliegance to the Queen.  I guess that's not so different to swearing alligence to a flag or to deifying concepts like liberty, fraternity and equality.
But sport is where it's clear that we don't really feel British.  Unless you're a fan of British American football, there's not really much in the way of Britishness in sport.  We tend to support our own constituent national teams in football, have widespread coverage of England-only sports like cricket, and even when there is a British team or player (like the Olympics, or tennis) if the sportsperson is not English, then you might as well forget Britishness - Andy Murray's "I'll support anyone but England" comments were a bit of a give away that his personal identity is not British.

The Olympics are an interesting situation for Britishness - our most popular sport is football, but unless our football leagues and politicians get their acts together, we won't actually have a British football team competing at the London 2012 Olypmics.  And that's despite David Beckham appearing in the red bus London 2012 montage thing at the closing ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.
That montage was itself supposed to sum up Britishness. It featured a collapsible London bus, multiethnic dancing commuters in bowler hats, the afore-mentioned Beckham, a 1960s rock guitarist and a talent show winner singing.  Celebrity, faux-60s nostalgia, football and wrecked public transport - a fair summation of Britain?     
Actually I rather liked it (I liked the Millenium Dome too - another attempt to show what Britain in the 21st century was about).  It felt fun and quirky, but rather like the first class lounge at Eurostar where Philippe Starck's decor is similar.
But fun and quirky is not unique to Britain - bar the bus and the fact that the celebrities in the Beijing montage were British, it could equally have been Belgium.  Maybe some of the commuters would've been eating moules-frites.

So if modern Britain is difficult to define in the abstract, why don't we refer to the past?  Well that's one of the problems for modern, diverse, tolerant Britain - we don't like to offend. And while we could probably use the symbol of Stonehenge, most of the rest of our history can be defined as being about subjugation of others.  We were pretty good at it.  But that's a bit embarrassing now.
An awful lot of wars of independence in the 20th century were about getting independence from us.  And a lot of the territorial disputes in the world at the moment are the result of settlements negotiated by Britain in the past (Yugoslavia, Israel and more).

But even if we're not quite clear what Britishness is, as a country we're pretty confident in it.  This might be a hangover from the days of empire, it might be something else.
Let me show you what I mean: Pop Idol, the British programme that kicked off the whole "Idol" music franchise worldwide was translated internationally as "American Idol", "Australian Idol" etc.  It originated in Britain, and so did not have to be called "British Idol".
"Teach First" - the rather excellent graduate scheme encouraging the brightest graduates to commit to be teachers for two years before either staying in teaching or heading off to their stellar careers elsewhere has gone to Australia as "Teach for Australia".  I can't think that "Teach for Britain" would have been nearly so successful.
And "America's Got Talent" was brought over to the UK as "Briatin's Got Talent" - and that title grates every time I hear it.
The point is, we don't have to say "British" to know that that's what we mean. We assume it's here and about us unless we hear otherwise. I guess that's a kind of national self-confidence.   

I mentioned stereotypes of Britishness and the fact that often those suggested by the English as British are often actually seen by the non-English British as being stereotypes of Englishness rather that something that they identify with: stiff upper lips, old maids on bicycles, warm beer and football hooliganism, that sort of thing.

But Britishness is a useful portmanteau identity, encompassing people from many different backgrounds, ethnicities, beliefs and more.  Identity is a lot more complicated than those diversity questionnaires that you get from your HR department - it's not just a question of ticking a box but of recognising the multiple identities that each individual holds. 

British might be the big headline identity, but (rather like those envelopes you addressed as a kid to Kent, England, UK, Europe, the Earth, the Solar System, Milky Way, Space, more space) there are layers: I'm European, British, English, a woman of Kent, Ashfordian and from the specific village and parish that my parents still live in. 
But I live in London, feel more at home in Brussels, I'm a Christian and belong to a church community, and to a work community... and if it comes right down to it I express a bit of who I am through the Facebook groups I choose to join (Facebook and YouTube  - the only context in which memes actually seem to make sense).  

But as identity is that personal, the state trying to define Britishness for us rankles a bit. 
Although again that might be because each of us knows what Britishness is to us - and as I've been trying to say, I suspect that's actually a very British trait.  You start wondering where was the consultation on what went into the citizenship exam (and the fact that the crib book that was issued in its first draft said that there were 5 founding countries in the EU when there were 6 makes me doubt how thoroughly it was thought out in any case)?
In any case, there are citizenship classes in schools already which, if done properly should be able to teach something of the values that make up Britishness - if we every manage to agree what they are.      

I know what I think Britishness is not - and that's what the British National Party stands for. 
If I didn't dislike them enough already, this week they've launched this advertising campaign using Jesus, presumably intending to capture the white Christian vote that feels oppressed by the secularism that's increasingly prevalent in society.  Don't fall for it - Jesus would engage with the people that opposed him, not throw them out.  The Ekklesia article here sets out a rather worrying parallel of language though - if the Cof E was trying to appropriate the language it's a bit of a c*ck-up.    

But I guess we need to get all this stuff sorted out somehow.  And then wait til we try to define being European...]]>