The great vote theft

It's extraordinary that the week after the release of the film Suffragette should see a threat to deprive millions of citizens of their votes. In Enfield up to 9,000 people - 4% of the electorate - could lose their votes on December 1st.

It's all due to the government's approach to Individual Voter Registration. This replaces the old system of household registration and, in principle, is probably better. But the government has chosen an implementation method that doesn't make best use of IT. It's now over ten years since a leading building society told me how they use multiple online databases to check the identities of applicants for bank accounts. Yet - and perhaps predictably - the government has chosen to ignore this and make life difficult for at least some citizens.

Not content with this the government decided this year to give local authorities one year less to  finish checking the identities of everyone on the old Register who hasn't yet applied to join the new  one. According to the Electoral Reform Society:

The government recently brought forward the date for transferring to the new system to December 2015 - one year earlier than previously planned,
meaning nearly two million people could fall off the register for no good reason.
We believe that¹s unnecessary, and wrong. And we are working hard to change it.
- See more at: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voter-registration#sthash.GjryK2WN.dpuf

The government recently brought forward the date for transferring to the new system to December 2015 - one year earlier than previously planned,
meaning nearly two million people could fall off the register for no good reason.
We believe that¹s unnecessary, and wrong. And we are working hard to change it.
- See more at: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voter-registration#sthash.GjryK2WN.dpuf

The government recently brought forward the date for transferring to the new system to December 2015 - one year earlier than previously planned,
meaning nearly two million people could fall off the register for no good reason.
We believe that¹s unnecessary, and wrong. And we are working hard to change it.
- See more at: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voter-registration#sthash.GjryK2WN.dpuf

"nearly two million people could fall off the register for no good reason. ..  that's unnecessary, and wrong."

 The ERS notes that

"areas with a high concentration of certain demographics – students, private renters and especially young adults" – are particularly in danger of having low registration numbers. .... urban and socially deprived areas where registration is low are likely to have fewer MPs per person than affluent areas where registration is high."

So the current process will have two significant results:

• The people, such as the young and ethnic minorities, least likely to vote for the government will be least likely to be registered and thus able to vote.
• The areas in which they are concentrated will have fewer MPs than others.

Enfield has two safe seats but the loss of one third of 9,000 voters would be enough to change the result in the third, Enfield North, where Joan Ryan won by just 1,086.

That is not a result which will much worry David Cameron but it ought to worry the rest of us!

PS: If you haven't registered yet do it now at https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote.

- See more at: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voter-registration#sthash.GjryK2WN.d

The government recently brought forward the date for transferring to the new system to December 2015 - one year earlier than previously planned,
meaning nearly two million people could fall off the register for no good reason.
We believe that¹s unnecessary, and wrong. And we are working hard to change it.
- See more at: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voter-registration#sthash.GjryK2WN.dpuf

The government recently brought forward the date for transferring to the new system to December 2015 - one year earlier than previously planned,
meaning nearly two million people could fall off the register for no good reason.
We believe that¹s unnecessary, and wrong. And we are working hard to change it.
- See more at: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voter-registration#sthash.GjryK2WN.dpuf

The government recently brought forward the date for transferring to the new system to December 2015 - one year earlier than previously planned,
meaning nearly two million people could fall off the register for no good reason.
We believe that¹s unnecessary, and wrong. And we are working hard to change it.
- See more at: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voter-registration#sthash.GjryK2WN.dpuf

The Islamic reformation has begun!

Most Westerners look at the escalating violence across the Middle East, and in Africa, with horror. We compare the brutalities of Islamic State and Boko Haram with the largely peaceful and tolerant societies we live in. We note that whilst Islamic State has re-invented state-sanctioned sexual slavery and kills homosexuals the Irish people have conducted an energetic but civilised debate and will legalise gay marriage.

Why, we ask, can't they be like us?  Why can't they agree to differ about sex, religion and politics?

Now this question ignores our own brutalities, such as Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition, and our roles in creating Muslim extremism and frustrating democracy in the region. These deserve our condemnation. But for now I want to recognise that the extremism and brutality we see have distinctively Islamic roots.

Some people have reflected on European history and decided that our tolerance is the result of the Protestant Reformation. They've called on Muslim leaders to create their own reformation - I've done so myself.

That, I now see, is wrong. That's not because Islam does not need reform but because the Islamic Reformation has been underway for the last century. For the Protestant Reformation is not what you may think.

Mehdi Hassan made this point in the Guardian recently:

Luther did not merely nail 95 theses to the door of [his church] ... He also demanded that German peasants revolting against their feudal overlords be “struck dead” ...  and authored On the Jews and Their Lies ..., in which he referred to Jews as “the devil’s people” and called for the destruction of Jewish homes and synagogues. ...  Luther helped establish antisemitism as “a key element of German culture and national identity”.

The Protestant Reformation also opened the door to blood-letting on an unprecedented, continent-wide scale. .... Tens of millions of innocents died in Europe; up to 40% of Germany’s population is believed to have been killed in the thirty years’ war.

All true. The Reformation and the nationalism that grew alongside it did release great violence and did divide Europe, roughly, into a Catholic South and Protestant North. One mark of its success is that the Peace of Westphalia,1648, ended the Pope's claim to rule Europe and guaranteed Christians the right to follow forms of Christianity not favoured by their kings.

The Reformation took 130 years to get to that point but many scholars put its end at 1750 - a full 230 years after Luther's decisive act.

But let's go back to Hasaan: 

The truth is that Islam has already had its own reformation ... Wasn’t reform exactly what was offered ...  by Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the mid-18th century itinerant preacher who allied with the House of Saud? He offered an austere Islam cleansed of what he believed to be innovations, which eschewed centuries of mainstream scholarship and commentary, and rejected the authority of the traditional ulema, or religious authorities.

Some might argue that if anyone deserves the title of a Muslim Luther, it is Ibn Abdul Wahhab who, in the eyes of his critics, combined Luther’s puritanism with the German monk’s antipathy towards the Jews. 

Just so. Lets also note that both men allied themselves with local rulers. Both reformations were puritanical and nationalistic. Ibn Abdul Wahab is the Muslim Luther for all those reasons. So we may date the Muslim Reformation from 1844, the date of his pact with Muhammad bin Saud.

But the reform process is not over. A 'reformist' current has been active in Muslim lands since the time of Ibn Abdul Wahab, most obviously in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was politically ineffective for many years; I'll leave the historical explanations for others but I suspect that the Ottoman Empire, colonialism, military strongmen and secular politicians all played their parts.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 marked a key point in the evolution of the Reformation - a Shia response to Saudi Arabia's Sunni fundamentalism and the creation of the second Muslim Reformation state. Or, some may think, a Counter-Reformation state.

The appearance of Islamic State and Boko Haram should therefore come as no surprise. They, too, are puritanical and harsh and though Islamic State claims universal jurisdiction Sunni nationalism clearly plays a key part.

Another parallel concerns religious 'ethnic cleansing'. Reformations and Counter Reformations are inherently intolerant. They seek conversion, forced if necessary, to their peculiar truths and the banishment or death of those who will not convert. The Protestant Reformation (and the wars that followed) created hostility to Jews, the division of Europe into Catholic South and Protestant North and the emigration of the Huguenots (Protestants) from France. The latest phase of the Muslim Reformation in the Middle East has led to the expulsion of Arab Christians, the persecution of Yazidis and the segregation of Sunii, Shias and Kurds in Syria and Iraq.

I think three things are obvious:

• The political processes of the Muslim Reformation are far from from complete. They may take much longer than the Protestant Reformation!
• Those processes are only incidentally concerned with the West.
• The Reformation will affect every mainly Muslim country to some degree; and many others. To a large degree it already has.

This implies the existence of fanatical states and would-be states across the Muslim world for at least decades. The wars that they wage will do great damage, with most victims being Muslims. They will provoke repeated waves of refugees both in the region and more widely.

This is a very unpleasant prospect but there is hope. For the Protestant Reformation led to the Enlightenment, to religious tolerance and ultimately to the less dogmatic and enthusiastic forms of Christianity that are now the Western norm. I believe that Islam will find these changes harder but, with luck, they will prove possible.

We must all hope so.

What Ed should say to Nicola and Alex

Cameron demands that Miliband exclude the possibility of a deal with the SNP. Miliband duly does so.

Cameron's motive is clear - he wants to prevent Miliband from forming a government with SNP support (or in any other way, of course). But what is Miliband playing at?

We all know that Labour hates the SNP for stealing its votes in Scotland. The imminent loss of so many Scottish seats will prevent Labour from winning outright - possibly from winning at all. So we can hardly expect goodwill. But why should a desire for independence put the SNP beyond the political pale? 

Independence is a legitimate political desire. It's one we often support, at least abroad, and sufficiently legitimate that Scotland was allowed a referendum to decide if it wanted it. It's not like support for terrorism or torture or racism - positions that ought to make collaboration unthinkable.

So if the election gives the SNP 40 seats it may well have more than the LibDems. It will be the third largest UK parliamentary party with a just claim to be considered as a coalition partner.

So what Miliband should be saying to the SNP NOW is.

We agree with you on many issues. We disagree with you on issues like Trident and independence but if you become a major UK party and Labour is the largest party we will talk to you. You mustn't expect to get independence that way; remember you lost the referendum! But politics is the art of the possible and if we can't defeat you we'll just have to negotiate.

That's not just necessary and inevitable, it's also right. If the SNP wins 40 seats it will have a mandate to represent those voters. Miliband should swallow his pride and listen.

TTIP: The end of democracy?

TTIP is the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It’s a proposed treaty that’s currently being negotiated between the EU and the USA. It’s hard to discuss because (a) it’s not yet final and (b) the negotiations are secret.

Its official purpose is to reduce the trade barriers between the US and the UK. Since there are few tariff barriers between the parties the main focus must be on non-tariff barriers, ie explicit protectionism and rules which make it difficult for a company to sell products and services outside its home country. In the case of foodstuffs these rules might relate to safety, inclusion of GM crops, use of antibiotics and other drugs on farm animals and animal welfare issues.  In the case of financial services the rules might relate to bankers bonuses or to risk management. In any sector the rules might relater to terms of employment, fair trade or environmental protection.

The impact of TTIP

In fact it’s fair to say that TTIP may undermine any of the protections for workers, consumers, animals or the environment that have been built up over the last century. TTIP looks like a corporate end-run round the advances made by trade unions, humanitarians and progressive campaigners generally.

Even if these advances were to be protected TTIP could make further advances impossible. It would make a farce of democracy at both national and EU levels.

That’s because of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system. In simple terms ISDS will allow companies to sue governments for breaches of TTIP. These disputes will be judged in private courts staffed by corporate lawyers! For an independent view see this in the Economist.

The likely effect of TTIP will be a ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of healthcare, environmental protection, employment rights and animal welfare (among other things).

So, like the rest of the Green Party, I'm opposed to TTIP because:

• ISDS makes democracy ineffective at both national and EU levels.
• It undermines established protections
• It strengthens corporate power over us, our trade and our governments.
• It will make liberalisation and privatisation 'one way streets': returning public utilities, hospitals or waste collection to the public sector once privatised will be much more difficult or even impossible once the agreement is in place.

The grey response to TTIP
It’s no surprise that UKIP, the Tories and LibDems support it – they favour greater corporate power and the only way they think we can compete is precisely by ‘racing to the bottom’, that is, abandoning our hard-won protections let alone the possibility of more in the future.

Labour attitude is harder to understand – it says it will support TTIP provided that its support for privatisation doesn’t cover the NHS. This assumes that only the NHS must be kept in the public sector, that it’s possible to draft TTIP so that it excludes the NHS and that Labour would recognise such a draft. I regard each of these assumptions as absurd.

But it’s worth asking why some otherwise sensible people support TTIP. I see two reasons – one public and one concealed. The public reason is that TTIP will make trade easier and that neoliberal theory says that that will make us all richer. But the theory is not true. Increases in trade may increase wealth but almost all of that extra wealth now goes to the rich – leaving the rest of us with lower wages and worse conditions. Just greater inequality.

Which suggests the concealed reason. It’s been a long-standing complaint by British business that the EU’s open market in goods allows the Germans and French to sell us products but the lack of openness in services stops our service businesses – our leading sectors – from selling into the rest of the EU.  And the leading service sector is, of course, banking!

So maybe it’s the bankers who really want TTIP. What a surprise!

The Green response

Elected Greens in the European Parliament and here in the UK are working hard to resist TTIP – with some success. The Green Party will do everything in its power – working with others at home and abroad – to prevent this damaging, dangerous and undemocratic agreement from coming into force.

The Green Party is the only major UK political party to oppose TTIP.

Chase Farm Housing: Why the secrecy?

On March 12^th the Council Planning Committee approved the Royal Free’s application to build a new Chase Farm hospital. This is long overdue and I’m sure it will be a good one. The school, too, is welcome. It’s the housing that’s the problem.

Enfield certainly needs more homes. There are many people, especially young people, who need homes of their own. So what they need is affordable homes. The redevelopment of Chase Farm is an opportunity to provide those homes yet the Council has accepted that only 13% of the 500 need to be affordable – rather than the 40% usually required.

The Royal Free claims that 13% is more that it can really afford and has shared the calculations (technically the Financial Viability Assessment) with the Council officers. But only the officers. Planning Committee members can’t see them and neither can we – the public – even though it’s our NHS negotiating with our Council! And this is despite judgements by the Information Commissioner and the relevant Tribunal in a case in Greenwich and in at least four other cases that the calculations should be published. The tribunal judge said publication of the calculations “would enrich the debate on an issue of considerable public importance”.

The issue here is transparency versus secrecy. Whether two public bodies should be able to reach a private understanding to keep key facts from the public. And it is the result of a drift towards NHS privatisation which obliges a world-class hospital to think like a property developer.

It appears that elected politicians – the democratically elected servants of the people – must take lessons in accountability from an unelected and unaccountable judge.

Call me naïve if you will – but I think that’s wrong.

It’s not too late to publish.

The triple crisis

Today we face a triple crisis.

• London is a rich city in a rich country, yet wages have fallen, work is insecure and many Londoners cannot afford decent homes. For the last 30 years the super-rich have taken most of the benefits of growth. And, horribly, a five mile drive across Enfield sees a ten year drop in life expectancy.
• Ever fewer people vote. While caring about their communities they are fed up with MPs who break their promises and seem powerless to solve their problems. Our political system no longer reflects the realities of Scottish devolution and the fractured nature of English politics. Worse, the major parties are afraid to upset the press barons and their friends in the City. They offer no real choice.
• Our industry and agriculture destroys more and more of the natural world. The World Wildlife Fund tells us that the numbers of birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish have declined 52% since 1970 whilst climate scientists warn us of catastrophe.

In short – we need fundamental change and have little time to achieve it.

The Green Party stands for a more equal society in which everyone can share the wealth (and pay their taxes!) We want to change our politics so that every vote counts and no-one can buy influence. And to stop trashing the planet we must abandon fossil fuels in favour of energy efficiency and renewables.

This will be hard. But it can be done if you, with me, vote Green.