“the merchant’s function… is to provide for the nation. It is no more his function to get profit for himself out of that provision than it is a clergyman’s function to get his stipend. This stipend is a due and necessary adjunct, but not the object of his life, if he be a true clergyman, any more than his fee (or honorarium) is the object of life to a true physician. Neither is his fee the object of life to a true merchant. All three, if true men, have a work to be done irrespective of fee – to be done even at any cost, or for quite the contrary of fee; the pastor’s function being to teach, the physician‘s to heal, and the merchant’s, as I have said, to provide. That is to say, he has to understand to their very root the qualities of the thing he deals in, and the means of obtaining or producing it; and he has to apply all his sagacity and energy to the producing or obtaining it in perfect state, and distributing it at the cheapest possible price where it is most needed.”
John Ruskin, Unto This Last (1862)
Europe’s ‘horseburger’ scandal reveals starkly what happens when Ruskin’s vision is rejected. It is particularly embarrassing for the Co-operative Group to find horsemeat in its ready meals, given the Co-op’s origins as an alternative economic model that was supposed to guarantee working folk wholesome food, free from adulteration by unscrupulous shopkeepers.
Rogue traders there always are, especially in a culture that uncritically lauds enterprise and can’t easily spot when creativity crosses over into crime. It’s also a culture that regards taxation as theft, so we can’t expect any more food inspectors to be hired in current circumstances. That leaves inspection to the supermarkets, who will pass on the cost to the consumer. We pay one way or the other, but what we really need is a change of mindset, towards one that promotes zero-tolerance of bad business practices in the first place. Perhaps a revival of the old guild system?
There’s no doubt that our food supply is a mess in all kinds of ways. Take a look at one website that sets out all the inter-related aspects we need to be thinking about reforming. We’ve written before about food, and wouldn’t change a word of that. So it’s good to see that we’re in at the beginning of a worldwide re-evaluation of what goes on our plate and how it gets there.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Friday, March 1, 2013
Negatives, Positives
An election with 14 candidates was always going to squeeze our share of the vote, making in-depth comparisons difficult. So we don’t view our 30 votes in quite as negative a light as you might suppose. Larger parties than us, that have polled much more in other circumstances, can limp in too; the English Democrats were also among those failing to make it into three figures at Eastleigh. Part of the problem with having a wide choice under first-past-the-post is that there’s often little that separates the smaller parties other than emphasis. The National Health Action Party supports the NHS. So do we. The Peace Party opposes militarism. So do we. Only proportional representation can remove the scourge of tactical voting.
A specific factor adding to the squeeze this time was UKIP. As soon as it became clear that Labour were a no-hoper, it was UKIP that mopped up the anti-Coalition vote. Their policies became almost irrelevant to that. Yet to protest against how the current crop of Westminster politicians manage the Whitehall farce is still an abdication of power and not, as a WR vote would be, an assertion of determination to take it back.
UKIP ran a campaign that was not only very well-organised but clearly very well-funded. Their campaign headquarters was a large, prominent building in the heart of the shopping area. That doesn’t come cheap. But with 11 MEPs, UKIP aren’t short of EU funding. The idea that the European Parliament might be paying for an anti-EU party’s attempt to get into the UK Parliament (from which it has so far been excluded by the time-honoured British practice of first-past-the-post) is one of history’s little ironies.
It would be naïve to suppose that we fight elections simply with a view to the votes, since our role is as much educational as political at this stage. What is currently of greatest positive significance to us is the publicity we gain, which is by no means limited to the seat contested. We have seen a phenomenal increase in web traffic over the past fortnight, with a steady stream of new followers on Facebook and Twitter and the highest-ever monthly number of pageviews on this blog, 3.6 times the number observed during the General Election campaign in May 2010. That is where value for our money lies.
Our aim therefore is to work for the last to be first. That’s what we exist to do, and we will continue to make the case for Wessex until it triumphs. The messages of support we have received – and continue to receive – are evidence enough that our ideas are sound, but remain sadly before their time. Sadly, because the longer it takes to implement them, the more wholly-avoidable suffering there will be.
A specific factor adding to the squeeze this time was UKIP. As soon as it became clear that Labour were a no-hoper, it was UKIP that mopped up the anti-Coalition vote. Their policies became almost irrelevant to that. Yet to protest against how the current crop of Westminster politicians manage the Whitehall farce is still an abdication of power and not, as a WR vote would be, an assertion of determination to take it back.
UKIP ran a campaign that was not only very well-organised but clearly very well-funded. Their campaign headquarters was a large, prominent building in the heart of the shopping area. That doesn’t come cheap. But with 11 MEPs, UKIP aren’t short of EU funding. The idea that the European Parliament might be paying for an anti-EU party’s attempt to get into the UK Parliament (from which it has so far been excluded by the time-honoured British practice of first-past-the-post) is one of history’s little ironies.
It would be naïve to suppose that we fight elections simply with a view to the votes, since our role is as much educational as political at this stage. What is currently of greatest positive significance to us is the publicity we gain, which is by no means limited to the seat contested. We have seen a phenomenal increase in web traffic over the past fortnight, with a steady stream of new followers on Facebook and Twitter and the highest-ever monthly number of pageviews on this blog, 3.6 times the number observed during the General Election campaign in May 2010. That is where value for our money lies.
Our aim therefore is to work for the last to be first. That’s what we exist to do, and we will continue to make the case for Wessex until it triumphs. The messages of support we have received – and continue to receive – are evidence enough that our ideas are sound, but remain sadly before their time. Sadly, because the longer it takes to implement them, the more wholly-avoidable suffering there will be.
The Thinking Thirty
Colin Bex issued the following press release today:
“Dear Eastleigh residents,
This is to confirm my pleasure at having had the privilege of being able to offer you the opportunity of voting for two of the most necessary changes in government to prevent this part of your Wessex region from being targeted as a continued victim of crippling austerity by Westminster and Brussels.
I congratulate the 30 people who had the wit and courage to vote for these changes, and I would be pleased were you all to contact me at wessex@regionalist.net to arrange a meeting in the town in the next month or so to discuss how we may consolidate our support and plan another battle for democracy in the 2015 General Election – this time with a full slate of candidates around the counties.
With a little under half the electorate refusing to vote, yesterday, and at least 90 spoilt ballot papers, the Liberal Democrat candidate was returned with less than 17% support from the constituency, thus committing you to business-as-usual by undemocratic diktat.
Any reasonable person will see that as an entirely unacceptable basis to justify the histrionic delight demonstrated by that candidate and his supporters at the count early this morning, at seizing power and embroiling us all in the further damage to be visited on Eastleigh by the callous, unrepresentative ConDem coalition government in the months and possibly years to come.
During my campaign over the last two weeks, I met only one person who openly condemned the Wessex Regionalist proposals, and that on the false ground that they would cause too many new levels of government. In fact of course we propose fewer levels than at present, with the crucial difference that the 'top’ level regional assembly and ‘upper’ level county councils would be answerable to the 'lower' level parish councils – unlike the reverse top-down imperative to divide and rule, as at present.
Finally I would thank all the delightful people I met – both candidates and citizens, especially the staff at the Wagon Works pub, and the council officers who enabled me to stand with efficiency, courtesy and friendship.
Until 2015 – good wishes to all
from
Colin Bex,
Parliamentary candidate,
Wessex Regionalists – the party for Wessex”
“Dear Eastleigh residents,
This is to confirm my pleasure at having had the privilege of being able to offer you the opportunity of voting for two of the most necessary changes in government to prevent this part of your Wessex region from being targeted as a continued victim of crippling austerity by Westminster and Brussels.
I congratulate the 30 people who had the wit and courage to vote for these changes, and I would be pleased were you all to contact me at wessex@regionalist.net to arrange a meeting in the town in the next month or so to discuss how we may consolidate our support and plan another battle for democracy in the 2015 General Election – this time with a full slate of candidates around the counties.
With a little under half the electorate refusing to vote, yesterday, and at least 90 spoilt ballot papers, the Liberal Democrat candidate was returned with less than 17% support from the constituency, thus committing you to business-as-usual by undemocratic diktat.
Any reasonable person will see that as an entirely unacceptable basis to justify the histrionic delight demonstrated by that candidate and his supporters at the count early this morning, at seizing power and embroiling us all in the further damage to be visited on Eastleigh by the callous, unrepresentative ConDem coalition government in the months and possibly years to come.
During my campaign over the last two weeks, I met only one person who openly condemned the Wessex Regionalist proposals, and that on the false ground that they would cause too many new levels of government. In fact of course we propose fewer levels than at present, with the crucial difference that the 'top’ level regional assembly and ‘upper’ level county councils would be answerable to the 'lower' level parish councils – unlike the reverse top-down imperative to divide and rule, as at present.
Finally I would thank all the delightful people I met – both candidates and citizens, especially the staff at the Wagon Works pub, and the council officers who enabled me to stand with efficiency, courtesy and friendship.
Until 2015 – good wishes to all
from
Colin Bex,
Parliamentary candidate,
Wessex Regionalists – the party for Wessex”
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Ashdown Reveals Defection Terms
As we await the result of the Eastleigh poll, we can provide a little of the background to the coverage our candidate received on Wednesday’s Newsnight. (Catch it on iPlayer while you can: starting at 6:14 in and ending at 6:43.)
Colin reports: “I was able to crash in on some publicity given to Paddy Pantsdown when I suggested he join a real party, to which he threw his hand to his head saying he had lost hours of sleep the night before, worrying about doing so, whereupon I reminded him the Pope had resigned, thus setting a good example, to which he replied 'If the Pope joins the Wessex Regionalists I may consider it'. I am sure Liberal Democrat headquarters will be well-pleased with that footage!”
We are well-pleased that Newsnight included footage of five of the parties standing: Conservative, Labour, LibDem, UKIP and WR. It seems we are now established as the fifth party in Wessex, at least in their eyes. So complaining about the favouritism traditionally shown to the big battalions has produced a result at last.
Talking of favouritism, Colin also sends news of the four-party-only public meeting on Tuesday, which was arranged by David Babbs of 38 Degrees (dangerous radicals they are then):
“I had to shame him into agreeing I should be able to speak. He said I should be allowed one minute as opposed to four minutes for each of the unmentionable suspects, so, before commencing I took over chairmanship by asking the audience to show if they wanted me to have four minutes as the others. There was a majority in favour so I did, and had a good response from a full house with two rows standing at the back.
People are smiling in recognition when they see me and I have taken a number of details of people I have spoken to, explaining that I hope to return to Eastleigh sometime soon after the election and that we intend to field at least one candidate for each county for the General Election in 2015, for which we want offers from people to join us.”
Colin reports: “I was able to crash in on some publicity given to Paddy Pantsdown when I suggested he join a real party, to which he threw his hand to his head saying he had lost hours of sleep the night before, worrying about doing so, whereupon I reminded him the Pope had resigned, thus setting a good example, to which he replied 'If the Pope joins the Wessex Regionalists I may consider it'. I am sure Liberal Democrat headquarters will be well-pleased with that footage!”
We are well-pleased that Newsnight included footage of five of the parties standing: Conservative, Labour, LibDem, UKIP and WR. It seems we are now established as the fifth party in Wessex, at least in their eyes. So complaining about the favouritism traditionally shown to the big battalions has produced a result at last.
Talking of favouritism, Colin also sends news of the four-party-only public meeting on Tuesday, which was arranged by David Babbs of 38 Degrees (dangerous radicals they are then):
“I had to shame him into agreeing I should be able to speak. He said I should be allowed one minute as opposed to four minutes for each of the unmentionable suspects, so, before commencing I took over chairmanship by asking the audience to show if they wanted me to have four minutes as the others. There was a majority in favour so I did, and had a good response from a full house with two rows standing at the back.
People are smiling in recognition when they see me and I have taken a number of details of people I have spoken to, explaining that I hope to return to Eastleigh sometime soon after the election and that we intend to field at least one candidate for each county for the General Election in 2015, for which we want offers from people to join us.”
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Right Here, Right Now
According to London newspaper The Guardian, “the fringe candidates have been great value”. Colin “has spent many chilly hours on Market Street patiently explaining exactly where Wessex is and why the ancient kingdom should not be controlled by Westminster”.
Ancient kingdom? Is that how Scotland, Wales or Cornwall would be described? Anyone would think we’re a party about the past, when in fact we’re the party most seriously concerned about the future.
At least the local media are doing a real job of providing impartial information in a non-patronising way. The usual attitude of London reporters just goes to show why we need to be in charge of our own destiny.
Ancient kingdom? Is that how Scotland, Wales or Cornwall would be described? Anyone would think we’re a party about the past, when in fact we’re the party most seriously concerned about the future.
At least the local media are doing a real job of providing impartial information in a non-patronising way. The usual attitude of London reporters just goes to show why we need to be in charge of our own destiny.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Wessex Conversations
It’s good to talk. It’s a necessary prelude to well-considered action. Yesterday as a party we had two lively conversations, one internal, one external.
The Party's Annual General Assembly, held at Wokingham, began the work of planning our election strategy for 2015. The meeting was arranged long before the Eastleigh by-election was called but our President broke off from campaigning to give us an entertaining and inspirational account of tactics in the constituency. A couple of members then accompanied him south to a hustings organised by Churches Together in Eastleigh (CTiE), held at St Andrew’s Methodist Church.
Waiting for the start, we were able to explain to one member of the audience why Eastleigh’s Wyvern Technology College has such an appropriate name. Eastleigh is a very mixed constituency. Chris Huhne, when he was the town’s MP, described it as “not pretentious at all, it’s very down to earth, and I think it’s great.” It’s a glorious cross-section of Wessex life and all life was indeed there last night.
Hustings we have known are of two types. There are those that advance the democratic process by even-handedness towards all candidates. There are also those that retard, truncate and ultimately undermine that process by allowing only ‘approved’ candidates access to the microphone. A fully functioning democracy isn’t just about choice: it’s also about how choices get to be defined and filtered. If they’re defined and filtered by undemocratic means - by favouritism - then the democratic choice itself is rendered meaningless.
We are pleased to report that CTiE did it right. The Tories and the LibDems did end up in an unseemly slanging match over local planning issues that was tedious to watch but the organisers had done their best to keep it all on a friendly level and most candidates had responded with very good humour. (According to Nick Clegg today, it’s a two-horse race, though he’ll only know this for sure if the ballot’s already rigged. If so, that’s a shame, since neither horse was on top form last night: too much whinnying by far.)
All candidates had been invited and ten were in attendance, arranged in alphabetical order, just as they are on the ballot paper. It was a very long table, accommodating a wide range of views. The contrast with programmes like the BBC’s Any Questions? and Question Time, where only opinions considered ‘safe’ are aired, let alone treated with respect, was immediately striking. A well-run hustings can reveal the truth that politics doesn’t have to travel in the same well-worn ruts.
The Britain portrayed by the mainstream media is one compressed into those very ruts: massively tribal in its thinking and with nothing better to do than gossip about the survival chances of the London party leaders and spit venom at ‘the other side’. Politicians are expected to jostle for power, to define or be defined. It is much less forgivable that the media, instead of opening-up space for ideas to grow, so often feign incomprehension and fawn before the familiar dinosaurs instead.
The Party's Annual General Assembly, held at Wokingham, began the work of planning our election strategy for 2015. The meeting was arranged long before the Eastleigh by-election was called but our President broke off from campaigning to give us an entertaining and inspirational account of tactics in the constituency. A couple of members then accompanied him south to a hustings organised by Churches Together in Eastleigh (CTiE), held at St Andrew’s Methodist Church.
Waiting for the start, we were able to explain to one member of the audience why Eastleigh’s Wyvern Technology College has such an appropriate name. Eastleigh is a very mixed constituency. Chris Huhne, when he was the town’s MP, described it as “not pretentious at all, it’s very down to earth, and I think it’s great.” It’s a glorious cross-section of Wessex life and all life was indeed there last night.
Hustings we have known are of two types. There are those that advance the democratic process by even-handedness towards all candidates. There are also those that retard, truncate and ultimately undermine that process by allowing only ‘approved’ candidates access to the microphone. A fully functioning democracy isn’t just about choice: it’s also about how choices get to be defined and filtered. If they’re defined and filtered by undemocratic means - by favouritism - then the democratic choice itself is rendered meaningless.
We are pleased to report that CTiE did it right. The Tories and the LibDems did end up in an unseemly slanging match over local planning issues that was tedious to watch but the organisers had done their best to keep it all on a friendly level and most candidates had responded with very good humour. (According to Nick Clegg today, it’s a two-horse race, though he’ll only know this for sure if the ballot’s already rigged. If so, that’s a shame, since neither horse was on top form last night: too much whinnying by far.)
All candidates had been invited and ten were in attendance, arranged in alphabetical order, just as they are on the ballot paper. It was a very long table, accommodating a wide range of views. The contrast with programmes like the BBC’s Any Questions? and Question Time, where only opinions considered ‘safe’ are aired, let alone treated with respect, was immediately striking. A well-run hustings can reveal the truth that politics doesn’t have to travel in the same well-worn ruts.
The Britain portrayed by the mainstream media is one compressed into those very ruts: massively tribal in its thinking and with nothing better to do than gossip about the survival chances of the London party leaders and spit venom at ‘the other side’. Politicians are expected to jostle for power, to define or be defined. It is much less forgivable that the media, instead of opening-up space for ideas to grow, so often feign incomprehension and fawn before the familiar dinosaurs instead.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Hobson’s Choice – Again!
WR President Colin Bex issued a press release today, protesting against arrangements for a meeting to be held in Eastleigh on Tuesday (26th February). The meeting will provide voters with the chance to hear from four of the candidates in the by-election. (We assume these are from the essentially indistinguishable major London parties.) The other ten candidates are not welcome. Colin is one of those ten.
We’re getting used to this now but it doesn’t get any more acceptable with repetition. It’s simply wrong, and it ought to be strictly illegal as an abuse of the electoral process. It is, above all, insulting to the voters, who have yet to vote and so have not prioritised the candidates from whom they wish to hear. How do the organisers of a meeting decide that four of the candidates are better than the others? Because their parties have done well before? What about past performance being no guarantee of future prospects? And doesn’t it become a self-fulfilling prophecy (not to say a self-perpetuating one) that if you only hear from the successful parties then those are the parties that will go on being successful? To break the mould, we must first break the silence.
We’re getting used to this now but it doesn’t get any more acceptable with repetition. It’s simply wrong, and it ought to be strictly illegal as an abuse of the electoral process. It is, above all, insulting to the voters, who have yet to vote and so have not prioritised the candidates from whom they wish to hear. How do the organisers of a meeting decide that four of the candidates are better than the others? Because their parties have done well before? What about past performance being no guarantee of future prospects? And doesn’t it become a self-fulfilling prophecy (not to say a self-perpetuating one) that if you only hear from the successful parties then those are the parties that will go on being successful? To break the mould, we must first break the silence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
