State Opening of the 2012 Olympics: Proposal to Boris Johnson

To : The Mayor of London
Boris Johnson

Dear Boris

I have a helpful suggestion for you, that will save you a lot of money and anxiety. You are going to like it.

It is about the Opening Ceremony for the London Olympics 2012. China is a hard act to follow, with their massive fireworks and computer graphics &c. We are not going to be in the same league, and also, as a Conservative, you will be looking to reduce the budget deficit wherever possible.

So here is my very helpful suggestion. Forget fireworks, because the Chinese invented fireworks, along with paper, the hang glider and an Encyclopedia Britannica of other things) because any display that we put up will be a damp squib (excuse the pun) in comparison with their effort. Forget huge displays of synchronised dancers with flags, because the Chinese outnumber us by 1000:1, and also the British are not so easily dragooned into uniform activities.

We need an opening ceremony that is (a) quintessentially British, and (b) cheap as chips. I am sure that your desk is piled high with expensive consultant reports telling exactly the same thing.

Well, I have the answer that you have been searching for.
It is...(drum roll)

A State Opening of the Olympics
Yes, you heard me right. A State Opening of the Olympics. As in "State Opening of Parliament". As in Golden Carriage, HM the Q, waving, Prince Phillip, perhaps with a shotgun (not loaded), the Royal Family, Horse Guards, Bearskins, Busbies, the lot. The full Monty. People will love it. Tourists will love it - they cross the globe to see the Horse Guards, they buy postcards of horseguards by the tonne. (Sorry, ton). Boris, you cannot go wrong with this one. We have all the gear, the carriage, the horses, the Grenadiers, the lot. All packed neatly away in the Quartermaster's stores. Get them out, quick dust down, quick rehearsal, you're ready to roll.


And the beauty of it is - that's not all.

You can follow up the Royal Procession with a Demotic Procession of other exemplars of Britishness. The only limit is the imagination.  Pearly Kings, non-bendy London buses, you name it.  I can see a squad of football supporters, selected for the uniform rotundity of their beer belly, wearing Union flag t-shirts, or maybe stripped to the waist. They will be happy to do it for a few free cans. They could even be doing that trick where they get a plastic washing-up bowl to stick to their bellies, you must have seen that? Anyway, I leave the details to you, or rather, to your team.  The football hooligans fans could be followed by a bevy of bare-midriff young ladies, all half-cut, teetering on or carrying their high heels.


I hope I have given you enough of my vision here to whet your appetite for  a truly British, yet low-budget, State Opening of the Olympics.


Naturally, this proposal, to be truly valuable, needs to the subject of appropriate remuneration. "Nothing", as King Lear so rightly said, "comes of nothing". I am not a banker, not a greedy man, but neither am I a pushover. Let us take the £400,000 cost of the Lisa Simpson 2010 logo as a starting point for our negotiations.


I look forward to hearing from you.


Yours sincerely


(Dr) Richard Lawson


PS when are you going to do HIGNFY again? You were good.
PPS I noticed on my last visit, that despite Transport for London giving a ludicrous reason to block my "Keep Left on the Walkways" proposal, that Londoners are now indeed tending to walk on the left in the passages of the Underground, which is improving the flow of pedestrians immeasurably.

---------------------------------
[update 23 March
I have just received a nice letter from Lucy Brant, Public Liaison officer for the GLA. She says:
"You have clearly given the matter a great deal of thought and we thank you for sending us your suggestions. the London Organising committee for the Olympic and Paralympic games are the body responsible for the opening ...ceremonies and would be in a better position &c, suggest you contact them directly"


So I will. Watch this space.]

Democracy needs Proportional Representation, which needs inter-party cooperation

My decision to withdraw from the General election in Weston has been contentious, although a modest majority of the feedback I have received has been supportive. For me, and I am sure for the local party, it has been incredibly painful, especially the loss of the power to take part in the local electoral debate. Such as it is - three or four hustings, which would cost about £250 apiece for the privilege of participation, hardly a bargain.


There are some who would prefer quietly to bury this story, but this I cannot do. There is a debate to be had, about the iniquity of the archaic First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral scheme. FPTP forces people into tactical voting, and now, in my case, tactical withdrawal.

There is a fear within the Green Party that the LibDems will say to other GP candidates, "Why don't you do like Richard and stand down, to let us defeat the Tory?" The obvious answer to this is is, "No, it's your turn to pull a candidate to our advantage. That way we get a better probability of two MPs who support Proportional Representation (PR)".

If the LDs do try to spin my withdrawal, using it against the GP, I am prepared to reverse the decision. They know this, and so far I have not seen any reports of this. LibDem blogs have mainly just reproduced the Weston Mercury editorial (see the post below).

This decision, painful though it is, might raise the profile of PR in the election.

The "Safe Seat Argument" runs thus: "This is a safe seat, so you are free to use your vote to show support for the Green political principles, which are for Radical Reform of politics, economy and international affairs. It is a very powerful argument, though in the past it has carried a drawback, the corollary of what happens in marginal seats. This has stopped us using it before. Now though we have the above "Your Turn" argument which disposes of that problem.

There is a whole discussion to be had of party politics, and co-operation. We want PR: that necessarily involves inter-party co-operation in Government. It is difficult and dangerous, as we see in Germany and Ireland; so we may as well start practising now. Voters are fed up with party bickering; they should be interested in cooperation.

I am well aware of the deficiencies of LibDems, and their manifold shortcomings in local Government. Not to mention Michael Brown. They also have a list of apparently perverse votes by Green Councillors. We could go for a mudslinging battle? Or would the cooperation story be more positive?

Yes, the LDs are often obnoxious, particularly vicious around elections (is it a kind of PMT?) but that's politics. We chose to get into this game, we have to learn how to play it. Yes, they are growthist &c. We have big policy differences, but we also have common interests, notably PR. And it must be accepted that they are more environment-friendly that the LabCon axis.

There is a history to what happened in Weston. I was elected to Woodspring DC with an arrangement with the libDems. I withdrew from the Parliamentaries in 1997 in favour of the LibDem Brian Cotter, and he won with a margin of votes equivalent to what I used to get. Not all Green votes, but they helped.

Mike Bell the LD will have a tough job on his hands to get a 2% swing, but thngs are volatile, and the FPTP debate, when it opens up here, can help to swing it.  Who knows what damage the Ashcroft affair will do to the Tories? (not a lot, probably, due to the power of the Tory media to suppress information).

This posting may create wrath in some parts of the Green Party, for which I am duly regretful.
I'm going to invoke free speech here. The Green Party does not subscribe to the whip system, even less to the on-message control freakery of NuLabour.

As someone said in a comment, there is more to politics than party politics. Democracy transcends party interests, and let there be no doubt about it: FPTP is a travesty of democracy, and FPTP must go. And to get that, we need inter-party cooperation.  Either that or a General Pause.

To the Editor of the Weston Mercury

The Weston Mercury ran the story of my withdrawal from the election last Tuesday, and also carried this editorial :

No such thing as a 'wasted vote'

Aspiring politicos of all persuasions are dusting off their snappy suits and colourful rosettes, and preparing to hit the campaign trail to convince people why they most deserve the public vote.

Or at least, that's how it should be.

But here in Weston, one party's candidate has already conceded defeat, dropping out of the race and signalling his wish to see a rival party secure the victory.

Doctor Richard Lawson - who earned close to 1,300 votes when he stood previously - secured his Green candidacy as an embodiment of the party's ideals, and spoke boldly of the need for action on his environmental agenda.

Undoubtedly he would have won friends and support, even if - as he suspects - not in sufficient numbers to have triumphed.

Yet those ideals and would-be voters have been abandoned.

What do Green Party voters do now?

'Vote Liberal Democrat' is Dr Lawson's instruction in what he transparently admits is a tactical ploy to deny victory to the Conservatives.

But how much credibility do these instructions have?

Many prospective Green voters will feel marginalised and betrayed by Dr Lawson's concession, so it's difficult to imagine an ongoing loyalty which would see them follow the instructions of a party which has turned its back on them.

Whether one supports Britain's 'first past the post' electoral system or not, the fundamental principal which allows freedom of candidature and voting makes Dr Lawson's decision unfathomable.

He may feel otherwise, but minority party backers will argue there's no such thing as a 'wasted vote' - the chance to throw your weight behind a cause or ideal you believe in makes your vote a significant message, even if it's not in a winning cause.

And that's exactly what the Green Party option stands for - or at least, what it could have stood for, and what the people of Weston will now be denied.


Here's my response:

The Editor
Weston Mercury
5.2.2010


Thank you for reporting and commenting on my withdrawal from the General Election race. I would like to clear up some misunderstandings. You say my motivation was “unfathomable”, but I set out my reasons very clearly in my press release.  I said that the Conservative party  is infested with climate change deniers and free market fundamentalists. The Conservative Party supports the ridiculous and sub-democratic First Past The Post electoral system. The Conservative Shadow Chancellor Osborne's economic policies threaten to bring a double dip recession onto the country. Cameron's "greenness" is wafer thin, as evidenced by the lack of emphasis on the environment in his recent speeches. If you are unable to publish these reasons because of their political content, then I would be grateful if you would at least publish this link, http://bit.ly/cLjaYI , where people can find out my reasons for withdrawal first hand.

You state that I gave “instruction” to people to vote Liberal Democrat. I categorically deny that, as you must agree if you read my blog. The fact is that although we Greens do take votes from across the political spectrum, there is a significant overlap between Green and LibDem voters.

You suggest that I have conceded defeat. It is impossible to concede defeat if you never claimed victory, and throughout my political career, I have never made unrealistic laims about victory. I did predict victory on the times when I actually was elected. The most likely victor in Weston is the sitting Conservative MP, and Mike Bell perhaps has an outside chance, if he makes a supreme effort, and manages somehow to get a high turnout. All other parties, including Labour, are also-rans.

The fact is that this appalling decision was forced on me by the worthless and outdated First Past the Post (FPTP) system, which makes many people vote tactically, rather than for the party they believe in. By extension, my tactical withdrawal is to assist a party that might bring about electoral reform. With FPTP, all votes apart from the ones that back the winner, are “wasted” in the sense that they gain no representation in Parliament. FPTP is associated with safe seats, low turnout, higher expenses, political stagnation and an ominous tendency towards elective dictatorship.  We have to break the dead weight of a not fit-for-purpose electoral system, and to do that, sometimes it is necessary to think outside the box, and take action, no matter how personally painful and difficult that decision might be.

DR RICHARD LAWSON
www.greenerblog.blogspot.com
EX-GREEN PARTY CANDIDATE FOR WESTON

Breakthrough into the world of Frugality Freaks

Through my new friend the Frugal Queen, I have burst through into a seam of frugal living blogs. Lovable eccentrics all. Read the Frugal World of Doc, but not while drinking tea, as that would put you at risk of Doing the Nose Trick.

Liam Fox MP must condemn YBF for condoning torture and extra-judicial killings

The Editor

Clevedon and North Somerset Times

We are entitled to ask Liam Fox MP publicly to condemn the views of Donal Blaney, chief executive of the Young Briton's Foundation This organisation has trained up to 2,500 Conservative Party activists. Dr Fox spoke recently at the YBF rally. Blaney supports the use of torture, and has suggested that environmental protesters should be shot if they trespass. He also wants Britain to lose the NHS and have a US-style firearms policy. Fox has so far said that he does not support the YBF, despite addressing them, but he has not condemned their extremist views, nor has he said that the Conservative Party must dissociate itself from the YBF.

Dr Fox' constituents and electorate deserve a clarification, because incitement to violence is in breach of the law.

Sincerely


Dr Richard Lawson
Press Officer, North Somerset Green Party

A FAIRGROUND RIDE

                                          

                                           Two kids inside a car

                                              fight
                                                     for the right

                                          to spin a useless wheel.


                                                     Politics.

 (c) Richard Lawson

circa 1980

The above is a not very good short poem. It and is not intended to convey any literal truth. It was something I saw, which reminded me at the time that it often seems that sometimes everything seems a bit pointless. I had an interesting day today doing a locum. I notice that Dr Crippen writes about his cases. I would like to, but would it not breach confidentiality?  I suppose it is OK to write in generalities, of how a sore throat turns out to be neck muscle tension due to multiple stresses, death, parenthood, financial worries, relationship problems - a whole life of sorrow and struggle unfolded in 10 (oh all right then 20) minutes.  At the end the patient left smiling. Another, 18 months of CITALOPRAM antidepressant represented another struggle with death. Told him the  story of a mother bereaved of her son, who asked the Buddha to restore him to life. "Obtain a cup of milk from a house where death has never come. Give him that, and he will recover". After asking fruitlessly at many houses, she came to accept her bereavement. The patient left smiling. It did me good to do medicine. Keeps mind occupied. When unoccupied, mind returns to its cracked record: "You Have Made a Mistake, You Have Made a Mistake". 

The Electoral Commission Fails to Inspire Public Confidence

The Electoral Commission (EC) has given the thumbs up to "Lord" non-dom Ashcroft's company, Bearwood Corporate Services*. It was a "permissible donor".

Bearwood Corporate Finance, advises on acquisitions and mergers, minimum fee £10,000.

I will just whizz us through the result of 18 months of Electoral Commission (EC) deliberations.

BCS, ...is not a regulated entity,
Which means what exactly? EC does not develop this thought.
Lord Ashcroft ...provided some information on a voluntary basis, although in response to requests for documents regarding BCS and its parent companies (including ownership, control, beneficial interests or provision of funding to those companies), his solicitors indicated that Lord Ashcroft did not have in his possession any such documents, and that his policy was to destroy documents unless retaining them was a requirement for an auditing, tax, or regulatory reason and any documents not within this category were not retained once their purpose had been served.Great policy. Free tip on How to Succeed in Business. Saves on space. Who wants to keep stuff about clients, outcomes &c?
The first reported donation by BCS to the party was on 28 February 2003. Between then and 31 December 2009 the party reported £5,137,785 of donations from BCS.
The EC gives no data on when BCS was founded, what its turnover was, what its profits were. Nada.
IN the absence of any data, let us assume that a company might choose to donate 5% of its total profits to the excellent Conservative Party. I make that an annual profit of £14,285,700. Nice work if you can get it. Inland Revenue please take note.

On the other hand, the EC says
There is no definition in PPERA** of “carrying on business”. However, in other areas of the law, the term has been interpreted broadly. It is not necessary for a company to generate profit. A company need not be actively trading, provided that the company continues to engage in business transactions, such as employing staff or paying for business facilities. Additionally, even if a company has not yet traded, provided that it is preparing to do so, it is likely to be within the scope of “carrying on business”.

• throughout the period under consideration BCS conducted a management consultancy business

• up to July 2006 it also conducted a merger broking business 

(Still is, according to its website).

• from December 2007 it carried on business as a holding company

BCS’ accounts indicate that the funds used for BCS’ donations were not generated wholly from BCS’ own trading activities.
(Money shifted to and fro from Besleaze)

Anyway,
The Commission concluded that BCS met the permissibility requirements for making political donations.
So that's all right then.

I'm bored already. This is like reading a New Age book entitled "Faeries are Real, Faeries are Good, Come Meet the Faeries in My Wood".

Read it yourself, if you think it is worth your time, it's only 7 pages long, with big type.

The point that I take home is that the Electoral Commission should be scrapped as part of the Governments' Debt Reduction Programme, and political party funding should be laid wide open to the free market. Anyone who wants to buy a politician, go right ahead. Be our guest.
Welcome to Britain, the land of unregulated political donations.

Remember this is the same EC that ruled that the Fraudster Michael Brown's company was OK to give a donation to the LibDems on the very day it was set up.

The aim of the Electoral Commission  is "integrity and public confidence in the democratic process".

My humble opinion is that they have utterly and completely failed. I could go on, but it would just be a rant, so I will close with just one final word: 


Bolleaux!!


*Funny name. Whatever would a bear be doing in a wood? I would have thought CathPope would be a more upmarket moniker. Never mind.
** The Law that covers this matter.

We can assume until proved otherwise that Fallujah birth defects are due to DU

Useful list of DU sites.

It is clear that there is an increased incidence of birth deformities in Fallujah.
What is causing it? The candidates are Depleted Uranium (DU), White Phosphorus, something else, or a combination of the above.

We know that White Phoshorus was used.
Abu Sabah, a refugee from Fallujah, reported seeing phosphorus bombs: "They used these weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud. Then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke trailing behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half and hour," Abu Sabah said. "When anyone touched these fires their bodies burnt for hours." Source

However, White Phosphorus, although toxic , is not known to cause birth deformities. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is not a major candidate.

Malnutrition, particularly folic acid deficiency, is a known cause of neural tube defects, but not of the more complex defects being seen in Fallujah.

There is controversy over  DU was used in Fallujah. It is hotly denied by Richard S Lowry, a "military historian" who has written a book on Fallujah.

Others disagree:
Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." Source.
That quote again:
Christian Bollyn of the American Free Press , Washington D.C asked Lt.Col. Joe Yoswa if the US was using Depleted Uranium in Fallujah and received the reply that " DU is the standard round on the M-1 Abraham Tanks" which have been used in Fallujah. source

The source continues,

It was estimated that during that assault over 10,000 tons of depleted uranium, DU, was used in the bombardment of the city of 300,000 people. Both the Pentagon and the British governments insist that the use of DU is not illegal. Source 
This 10,000 tonne figure is doubtful. It may relate to the amount used in Iraq as a whole - see below. 

ICBUW is investigating the possible use of uranium weapons during the attacks on Fallujah. Currently it seems that Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles were deployed during both battles. Both vehicles carry armour piercing rounds containing uranium and high explosive rounds which do not. However the fact that they were not facing armoured targets does not mean that only high explosive rounds were used. In fact, there are indications that armour piercing ammunition may be more effective against individuals fighting behind cover in urban areas. While is not known how widespread the use of uranium weapons was during the fighting, it seems likely that it was used to some extent.
Source

The Pentagon admits to having used 1,200 tonnes of DU in Iraq thus far.
Source

So there are wide discrepancies in the reportage. These discrepancies can be resolved by publication of the original the ammunition lists from 2004. Or let's hear from crews who were there. Most importantly, let us do a survey on the ground in Fallujah, to find out what radiation counters and chemical analysis shows.

Here is one source that could prove Lowry wrong:
Mr. Rasheed presented a video report entitled "Witness from Fallujah." And regarding DU, he said: "We detected abnormally high radioactivity by using a Geiger counter." Source.

DU is both radioactive and chemically toxic. As a chemical weapon it would be banned by the Geneva Convention, so the military have no choice of stance except Stout Denial. There is no proof that DU causes these problems, they say, exploiting journalists' ignorance of the fact that there is no proof in science, only evidence. And the evidence that DU causes problems is as widespread as the use of these weapons.


There is evidence that DU can cause birth deformities.: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."


What is lacking is not "proof", but the willingness of politicians to listen to doctors rather than to generals in matters relating to medicine.

The evidence needs sorting out, and the Bradford Hill guidelines need to be applied.

Nuclear Deterrence and Logic

Nuclear Deterrence and Logic

If the consequences of the failure of a system would be infinitely destructive to civilisation, it is reasonable to use that system if and only if the probability of its failure are zero. 

The argument here is that there is a greater than zero chance of nuclear deterrence leading to nuclear war, and that war would be infinitely destructive of human civilisation. This leads to the conclusion that the world needs to scrap nuclear weapons absolutely and completely.

The possession of nuclear weapons by a number of states in the international community does constitute a system, that is, a group of interrelated parts forming a whole.

Can the system fail? Nuclear deterrence is a complex arrangement of electronic sensors embedded in a command and control network composed of humans working to hard protocols that are interwoven with pattern judgments and valuations which are affected by the emotional state of the individuals and groups that make the judgments. The groups themselves, particularly the supreme decision making groups, are isolated from the common body of humanity, and are known to be susceptible to a condition known as group think – defined as A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.[i] Moreover, the interplay of decision makers is now far more complex than in the days of the cold war, with players coming on to the field who might not view the destruction of the prevailing world civilisation as a thing to be avoided at all costs, and other players already on the scene who believe that nuclear weapons could be used tactically without risking a strategic exchange.

In short, it is entirely reasonable to judge that the probability of failure of the nuclear deterrence system is greater than zero. [ii]

Would the breakdown of the nuclear deterrence be infinitely destructive? This is a point that must be settled by a value judgment. First, would it be possible to get away with a limited exchange, or would one nuclear detonation inevitably escalate into an all out global nuclear war?

It is impossible to give a definitive answer to that question, but the safest assumption to make is that if one weapon is detonated, they will all be fired. The reason for this lies in the doctrine of first strike, which aims to destroy the opponent’s weapons before they can be fired. Once it is known that an opponent has detonated a nuclear weapon, the pressure will be on for supreme commanders to fire all their nuclear weapons before they lose them to a first strike. In view of this, although we cannot say that any exchange would inevitably lead to a first strike, it would be the height of folly for anyone to assume that they could use weapons in a limited tactical strike and believe that matters would then be allowed to rest by the opposition.

Unfortunately this limited tactical strike idea is the prevailing nuclear doctrine of the United States of America. They consider that nuclear weapons could be used tactically, as an extension of a conventional military campaign. In doing so, they may trigger an all-out nuclear war.

Would an all out strategic nuclear exchange be infinitely destructive? There are estimated to be at least 27,000 nuclear weapons in the world held by at least eight countries, 96 percent of them in the possession of the United States and Russia. [iii]

The effects of all-out nuclear war were well studied in the 1980s. Physically, the most interesting possible effect is the so-called Nuclear Winter, where atmospheric soot cuts off sunlight for a period of weeks or months.[iv] When the sunlight returns, the effects of city and forest fires will have been to increase the atmospheric CO2 load, thus exacerbating global warming. Species loss will increase, secondary to habitat loss. Of these, the loss of bees will be most important, since cessation of their pollination services will lead to failure of such crops as survivors may try to plant. Ironically, rats and cockroaches are resistant to radiation, and so will flourish, given the plentiful quantities of human and animal carrion available.

To say the least, economic growth after a nuclear war would be unlikely. In fact a global economic recession or even a depression is almost inevitable, and to be replaced by a survival economy based around obtaining water, food, warmth and shelter for the group. Life will be short, and cancers plentiful, but health services would be rudimentary, and analgesics in short supply. Gangsterism, like the rats, will flourish, and self interest is likely to become the ethical norm.

In summary, it is entirely reasonable to expect that an all out nuclear exchange would lead to the end of western civilisation. It would therefore be infinitely destructive.

In terms of the model set out at the beginning, the consequences of the failure of a nuclear deterrence system would indeed be infinitely destructive to our civilisation, the probability of its failure is greater than zero, and therefore it is illogical for our civilisation to use that system.

Since the syllogism contains a value judgment, and there will inevitably be others who take a different view. However, they are compelled to argue either that the deterrence system is perfectly safe, which is manifestly not the case, or that a tactical weapon would not lead to an all-out nuclear war, which is clearly not provable, or that an all-out nuclear war would not destroy civilisation, which is clearly unreasonable.

In the circumstances, however, because of the uncertainties involved, it is safer to take a precautionary view. The great majority of humanity view the possibility of all out nuclear war with a great deal of distaste. They should be helped to understand that the nuclear deterrence system is not infallible, and that these weapons are quite capable of being used in anger. This should then motivate them to exercise their democratic right and duty to remove from political office anyone who believes that it is reasonable for any state to possess nuclear weapons.

Dr Richard Lawson

---

[i] Janis, Irving L. Victims of Groupthink. Boston. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972, page 9.

[ii] Lachlan Forrow and others, "Accidental Nuclear War --A Post Cold War Assessment," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol. 338, No. 18 (April 30, 1998), pgs. 1326-1331

[iii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons (4 June 2007)

[iv] Nuclear winter: Physics and physical mechanisms," R. P. Turco, O. B. Toon, T. P. Ackerman, J. B. Pollack and C. Sagan, Ann. Rev. Earth and Planet. Sci., 19, 383-422 (1991).

Michael Foot, Peacemonger

So, farewell, Michael Foot.
We know you were an orator,
That voters threw out your donkey jacket,
And you were CND.

You did not believe
That lasting peace could come
Out of a threat of universal death.

You did not believe
That anyone should have the power
To evaporate, blast, scorch, roast

Crush, maim, burn, choke, irradiate,
Sicken, sh*t blood, starve,
Freeze, immiserate a milllon souls.


And for your lack of faith
They mocked you, set you aside,
Crushed you, made you to be a fool

Until this day. Now you are dead,
They'll sing your praises to the tainted skies.
But they'll not mention your beliefs,

Not mention that to lead this land
One must be fit to do
That thing which is unspeakable.

They will not speak of Universal Death
While they recite your eulogies.

Within the suited ranks,

There will be one who might at any time
Be called to give the order to cremate our world.
A whispered word, a hurried nod to coffin and MC,

Then off the PM goes, to do the deed.
There is no other way. Get used to it.
The threat of omnicide cannot be wished away.

Logic can have no place. We cannot say
If a thing cause infinite destruction when it breaks
We use it if and only if it cannot break.


We cannot think like that. There is no place
For Logic in our world. Nor for Humanity
Nor Fellow Feeling. Nor Equality.

Only a stream of words, only the pretence
Of politics, only the propaganda and the lies,
Where gossip is god, and Michael Foot
Need suffer fools no more.

(c) Richard Lawson 

3rd March 2010

Stephen McIntyre makes false claim to committee, invalidates whole AGW skeptic case

Steve McIntyre, one of the main AGW (Man-made climate change) sceptics, has made a submission to the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee into the East Anglia University hacked emails. His submission is here.

In para. 7 he refers to tree ring data. This has a close relationship to temperature, except in the later years of a tree's life, when rings are stretched thinner, and therefore produce a false impression of colder climate. Dendrochronologists therefore have to make an adjustment to the data to allow for this fact.

McIntyre however states in his paper, "there was no scientific basis for such an arbitrary adjustment". (para. 8).

I wrote a polite question on his blog discussion thread asking him about this point.

Posted Feb 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

Steve, you say “there was no scientific basis for such an arbitrary adjustment” [of the tree ring record], my understanding is that it is a feature of dendrochronology that more recently laid down tree rings are thinner than those buried more deeply within the tree. Which would create a scientific basis for applying an adjustment. Would it not?

Steve: Not this adjustment.

• 
  
  
  
  MrPete
  Posted Feb 28, 2010 at 7:54 PM | Permalink | Reply
  Re: Richard Lawson (Feb 28 13:38),
  That’s not an arbitrary adjustment. Carefully-constructed mathematical methods, with some physical principles underlying, take care of the general time-related growth changes. Even those engender much discussion. But at least they aren’t completely arbitrary.
  

So it seems that McIntyre is wrong about tree rings. The charitable interpretation is that he does not understand. But he should do, because he has been banging on about it for years and years.
------------------------

Now, then, let's get into Daily Express mode: [CAUTION: IRONY WARNING!!]

CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTIC MAKES ERROR SHOCK
Canadian engineer Steve McIntyre, the self-styled "scientist" at the heart of the vicious attack on the future of the planet, has an error of science right at the heart  of his submission to respected Science and Technology Parliamentary Committee. He does not understand the basic facts of tree ring data. This latest revelation totally invalidates the case of climate skeptics, and proves that ...

[IRONY WARNING ALL-CLEAR]

Sorry, I can't keep it up.  But this is indeed a cameo of what is happening.  The sceptics take a single error, inflate it into a general refutation of the whole picture, weak-minded and gullible journalists take it up, and the grasp of the public on what is going on is further diminished.
Goebbles must be giggling in his grave.

Here is a detailed answer to McIntyre by Briffa on this question.

Avaaz: defend the BBC against the Evil One

The Evil All Seeing Eye of Mordorch has sent his Nazgul to fight against the Bibicee of the Shire. Although the BBC is not as truthful and impartial as we thought it was in the past, it is immeasurably less untruthful than the utterances of Mordorch's Orcs. Worse yet in the eyes of the Wrinkled One, the Bibicee is not a private Corporation, but an organisation paid for by public subscription. This makes it a Communist Conspiracy in the distorted thinking of Mordorch. Therefore Mordorch is intent on the death of the Bibicee.

We, the people, although we are sometimes obliged to knock the odd 1p off the license fee to punish them for not showing the DEC Gaza Appeal, must gather to defend the Bibicee against the Evil One. The Avaaz petition is here. Please sign.

So Ashcroft is a non-dom: what happens next?

Just over two weeks ago, I took the bold step of forcing the issue of Lord Ashcroft's tax status, by issuing a potentially libellous allegation.  Today, he coughs up the truth. He is a non-dom.   He does not pay full British tax. His company does not conduct his business in the UK.

What happens next?

Page 10 of the Electoral Commission's Guidance to political parties states,
3.6 Parties can only accept a donation or loan (as defined in Chapter 2, ‘Defining
parties, donations and regulated transactions’) with a value of more than £200 if the
donor or lender is in the following categories:
• an individual registered in a UK electoral register (including bequests)
• a UK registered company which is incorporated within the EU and carries on
business in the UK

So Lord Ashcroft is not a "permissible donor". The Tories are now obliged to report the donations:
5.2 Parties are required to report details of any of the following relevant donations: [...]
• any donation of more than £200 received from an impermissible or unidentified
donor

The Electoral Commission will require the Conservative Party to return Ashcroft's gifts.
Failure by a party to return a donation from an impermissible or unidentifiable source
Section 56(3) and (4) On summary conviction: statutory maximum fine or six months’
imprisonment.

O dear. That would make Dave the first PM to govern the country from a cell in Wormwood Scrubs. He will have to return the donations. I believe he needs to write a cheque for a sum in the region of £3,000,000, which should not be too much of a problem.

Unless the Electoral Commission somehow loses the paperwork or lets the trail go cold.



The Electoral Commission can be reached at:
Trevelyan House
Great Peter Street
London SW1P 2HW
Tel: 020 7271 0500 (switchboard)
Jenny Watson is the chair of the Commissioners.

Their stated aim is "integrity and public confidence in the democratic process."

Be polite but firm in your communications with Jenny.
[update: sadly, the Electoral Commission is doing an impersonation of an ashtray on a motorbike, functionality-wise]

Green candidate pulls out of Parliamentary race for fear of letting Tory through

I have just issued this Press release to my local media:

No embargo

Dr Richard Lawson, who was to have been the Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for Weston-super-Mare, has regretfully decided to withdraw his candidacy, in order to increase the chance of the Liberal Democrats taking the seat from the Conservatives.

Dr Lawson said: "This is the result of a great deal of soul-searching over the past weeks. It was a very difficult decision, as I have had 3 invitations to attend hustings, which I very much enjoy, and was beginning to get my mind into campaign mode. I was particularly looking forward to arguing for increasing income equality as a solution to many social and health problems. If UKIP had put up a candidate in Weson, I would have challenged them to debate climate change.

The thing that swung it for me is the recent news that the Conservative opinion poll lead is declining. This raises a faint possibility that the LibDems could win in Weston.
My candidature was founded on the idea that Weston was a safe Conservative win. The argument was that in that case, under FPTP all non-Tory votes were "wasted" in the sense that they find no representation in Parliament. People should make a Green Vote as that is a far more powerful protest than merely abstaining from the poll.  The Green Vote represents radical political, economic, social and environmental reform.

That platform becomes shaky if Weston becomes vulnerable to a LibDem gain.

I could not live with myself if the Greens in Weston got, say, 1,000 votes, and the Tory won by a margin of 100 votes over the LibDem, and David Cameron formed a Government with an overall majority of one.  Unlikely as that might be, it is incontrovertible that there is a big overlap between Green voters and LibDem voters, and in that situation, I would have been responsible for putting a Tory Government in power.

There is no reasonable doubt that the Tories are a major threat to the security of Britain's society, economy and environment. John Penrose is a decent MP, but his Conservative party  is infested with climate change deniers and free market fundamentalists. He supports the ridiculous and sub-democratic FPTP electoral system. The Conservative Shadow Chancellor Osborne's economic policies threaten to bring a double dip recession onto the country. Cameron's "greenness" is wafer thin, as evidenced by the lack of emphasis on the environment in his recent speeches.

I am very angry that the FPTP electoral system has forced this decision on me. Under a more democracy-friendly system, all votes cast in Weston would have had representation in Parliament, and people could vote to support their principles.  FPTP forces people to vote tactically, and in my case, to stand tactically".

Dr Lawson will continue to set out Green political and economic views on his blog http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/

-ends-

Personal note:

Damn. Damn damn damn. We live in a stinking, smearing, offensive system that is worse than sh*tty, because you can turn that into fertiliser. The present political system needs radical reform, and I was lining up to argue for that in the political debate, but the risk of making things worse was too great. Greens are excluded from the political system by the vote, and by substantial exclusion from the broadcast political debate. 

[update] Correspondence with Weston Mercury.
[update 5th May: a YouGov poll today puts the LibDems in the South West at  41% as against 36% for the Tories. Labour are nowhere. YouGov tends to overestimate the Tories, being run by Tories, so the position may be even better.

This country needs radical political reform. Proportional Representation is the first step. The logic is, Vote tactically this time to get PR, then you can vote for what you truly believe in.