There has been an ongoing “re-evaluation” of Green Party policy around scientific evidence recently. This came about mainly due to a few journalists helpfully letting us know that there was some deeply dodgy stuff in policy.

It certainly came as a shock to many of us who had not thoroughly read our voluminous policy documents.

This conference saw the first swath of re-orientating our policy on a more science friendly footing. We passed the motion on abolition of the science pledge – a policy so offensive to scientists and ‘technologists’ that it makes me wince just to think of it. Anyway, it’s gone. Hurray.

This was quickly followed by the passing of the science chapter enabling motion which means that the party has officially endorsed a review and rewrite of our entire science and technology section of the PSS, our core policy document.

That’s going to take some hard work and we’ll be looking for people both inside and outside of the party to help us with that process.
continue reading… »

The attempted terrorist attack on an airliner on Christmas Day has attracted so much international press that it’s difficult to ignore. However, my thoughts are mainly in a jumble about the whole thing so rather than take time might a cogent think piece I thought I’d make a list of ‘things what occur to me’.

1. Fail to blow up a plane, you get wall to wall coverage for your cause in every nation on Earth. Actually blow up dozens or even hundreds in Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan and you’re lucky if you get into the inside pages once let alone over and over again. It’s obviously news but the response feels disproportionate.

2. What would the world be like if we rewarded non-violent protest with this kind of media coverage? Does the international media actually, inadvertently, make violence more attractive than democratic avenues? The media’s approach is certainly what leads Al Quaida to see airplanes as their targets of choice over other possibilities.
continue reading… »

As regular readers of Liberal Conspiracy will be aware there has been an ongoing discussion over the Green Party’s attitude to science. While the Greens may have been ahead of the curve on climate change, writers like Martin Robbins have highlighted the fact that “in spite of their sparkling climate and environmental credentials” in many areas “their policies are far out of step with the scientific community”.

He’s right. Whether it’s the pledge, stem cells or alternative therapies there’s plenty of gut churningly embarrassing policy to choose from. What’s been interesting, as a Green Party member, is that the majority of those I’ve spoken to have been equally shocked at these revelations.

I’ve been pleasantly surprised to find that the key task ahead is not to persuade party members of the need for evidence based policy, most of them are there already, but to actually crack on with the work of a serious review of our science, technology and health policies.
continue reading… »

The Archbishop of Wales has come out against people being able to opt out of religious services at school.

Barry Morgan thinks that prayer offers pupils the opportunity of “recognition, affirmation and celebration of shared values”, and people should not be allowed to opt out of our shared values, particularly if they don’t share them.

He made the statements as Wales followed England in allowing over 16s to opt of religious service as part of their school day. I should point out that if you’re under 16 you’re still forced to sit through prayers, et al, even if you have firm convictions in another direction, like atheism.
continue reading… »

For most of the left the range of support for Obama has ranged from a passive “I’d prefer it if he’d beat the other guy” to an over the top enthusiasm at an historic turning point (like me), but a small section of the left has a different take on the US elections, one that actively discourages a vote for Obama, no matter what the consequences.

Part of this attitude is best demonstrated by that brilliant Mao anecdote when an American (I think it might have been Nixon) rebuked him for China’s one party system. He smiled and said “But America has a one party system too, but with typical capitalist extravagance you have two parties.” I respect that.

It comes from years of Repubocrat policies where it’s been difficult to slide a cigarette paper between the two parties. But right now you could park a bus in the gap between the tickets, and then some. The neo-conservative agenda of the Republicans isn’t just a set of different flavour policies, like the difference between Coke and Pepsi, it is a fundamentalist agenda of war, privatisation and imperial dominance. Obama might not be a pacifist but he ain’t George Bush neither.

continue reading… »

The Declaration of Human Rights (article 19) states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Which looks like a reasonable starting point to me.

Except we’ve never held to this idea in its purest form. It’s generally accepted that it should be an offence to slander someone, to incite illegal acts, to distribute child pornography – most of us don’t believe people should be able to say anything they please regardless of the consequences.
continue reading… »