I was somewhat surprised by the lack of traffic this morning on certain social networking sites about the demotion of Sir Fred Goodwin to plain old Mr Goodwin. There was a certain rumble but nothing like the massed ranks of gloaters I’d expected. Perhaps, I thought, given the British public’s legendary propensity for justice and goodwill, people had decided, justice having been done, that it was best to leave the man to repent in peace.

I scrubbed that idea when I realised it was patently rubbish.

I suspect the quietude we are currently seeing on this particular front is down to neither side of the political debate being able to claim crowing rights in the matter.

The left can hardly bleat. It was under dear old Tony Blair that the lowly Mr Goodwin was elevated to the peerage for “Services to banking”. I toyed with the idea of putting together a novelty forfeiture committee certificate saying he’d been stripped of the accolade “For services exclusively to banking while ignoring the risks to the rest of us poor proles” but thought better of it.

The left, in this instant, stood by and did nothing while the bankers rose to fame. I can’t remember much in the way of vocal protest at the time and while the Labour Party basked in the kind of attention from business of which they had hitherto only guiltily dreamed it’s not all that surprising.

But while the left could be accused of sleeping on the watch, the right have little claim on the moral high ground either. I may have to plough through a slack handful of Hansards to prove my point but I don’t recall the great PMQ speeches of Messrs Hague, Duncan Smith, Howard or indeed Cameron decrying the level of fawning and sycophancy towards the financial elite during Labour’s terms. Neither can I remember any mass protests in the streets or indeed in the commons demanding tougher regulation for the multi-billion-pound casinos using the fabric of our economy for chips. Then again I don’t remember them saying much about spending too much and not saving for the future. Can’t bring a single speech to mind. The memory is such a fragile thing.

As for the current leadership of both the left and the right neither seem particularly keen to say much on the subject now the deed is done. Four years after the cataclysm, Mr Milliband might be asked why he hadn’t called for such a thing before or why he wasn’t now calling for the heads of other ennobled members of the board of RBS.

Likewise Mr Cameron seems reluctant to engage in the debate, perhaps for fear of exposing the truth, which is that rather than a Conservative party Röhm-Putsch to cleanse the organisation of it’s backstairs bastards and draw a line under the affair, the grandees have circled the wagons and thrown dear old Freddie out to face the Sioux with an archery target painted on his gingham shirt.

Her Majesty, I suspect has the best complaint but is restricted by noblesse oblige from complaining about being called upon by a former PR Executive to wield the sceptre against such a transparently sacrificial goat.

No. Whatever your political complexion there’s little schadenfreude to be gained from Mr Goodwin’s exit from the other place. The whole episode was a disgrace for us all.

Fear not though, there is one thing you can think of which will unite us all with a wry smile at Freddie’s descent back in to the the ranks.

No doubt when he was ennobled Mr Goodwin will have done what all those gaining a new title do. On gaining a PHD I understand the majority’s reaction is to change ones stationary and particulars to reflect the new letters before ones name. Of course being a diligent manager of RBS, Mr G will have taken out an account with his own company and had his cards changed in a heartbeat.

So we can all sit back now with a warm feeling in our hearts as we think of him finally getting a chance to see what it’s like to be a customer of a high street bank in Britain, the like of which he once commanded.

Imagine trying to explain to ‘Rebecca’, the hard pressed engineering graduate from Mumbai that you haven’t lost your plastic or had it stolen, you’ve simply fallen from grace. I suspect there isn’t a form for that.

He’ll presumably have to repeat the exercise with Adam & Company, who, I understand, now deal with his finances on a day to day basis.

When you tire of that image (as you may within a month or so), refresh the smile by imagining him explaining it all again to the DVLA in Swansea.

 

Despite all the fun and games happening in Europe I’ve been rather quite on the matter, and am actually going to continue with that with this post. So many other people are doing a much better job of commenting all I could really add is a “what they said”. I am however going to use the EU crisis and a post about it to pose a question that’s puzzled me for years and which The Snowolf just expressed in a far more eloquent fashion than I’d manage. What the Snowolf said was:

“Politicians get very sniffy about populist policy decisions, this is no surprise, because as far as they’re concerned, it is our job to accept their decisions, not their job to act on our wishes. But of course doing the popular thing makes you, well, popular.”

Which sums up rather what’s puzzled me for so long about politicians being “populist”, after all isn’t populism the whole basis of at least our electoral system if not democracy as a whole?* The theory is as I understand it that the wannabe politician makes loads of promises and the most popular or populist gets elected and then ignores those promises.

Then when they want to be elected again they do the whole popular thing again, and oddly we believe them. It’s just in between times both the politicians, the media and all sorts of activists seem to think that populism is a terrible terrible thing. Almost makes one suspect that they do view us as an inconvenience.

So what’s puzzling me is what exactly is the difference between bad evil “populism” and “representing the majority”? Or is it one of those irregular verbs, like:
I’m erotic
You’re kinky
They’re perverted
So:
I represent the silent majority
You’re populist
They’re a rabble rouser?

I do of course welcome both other explanations and improvements to my irregular verbs.

* Both populism and democracy have roots in words meaning the people? demos and populous?

 

Sorry to be posting so much in such a small space of time, rest assured this will not be kept up and normal lack of service will soon be resumed (not being on holiday will no doubt help). However this evening I actually remembered to watch some TV I’d seen trailers for, this is a bit of a calender event but the trailer had annoyed me which is a great motivation. If you didn’t watch it do make time to watch Channel 4′s “the flaw” it’s really rather good, even if not entirely convincing. The highlight of course being Alan Greenspan admitting he was wrong, but to look at a slight hint of the incoherence from the blurb:

“He’d placed too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets. In a system based on the unsustainable lending necessary to fuel continued spending, the world found to its cost what happens when that credit bubble bursts.

Drawing on interviews with leading world economists, The Flaw attempts to explain – in unprecedented depth – the underlying causes of the global financial crisis.

Unless the root causes of the problem are addressed, the system may collapse again, and next time it may not be possible for governments to rescue it.”

As I’m going to mutter about most of that I’d just ask if anyone’s noticed the governments actually managing to rescue the system this time round?

But anyway onto my notes, this may not be entirely coherent as I’ll address things as they came up in the program. Apparently there’s been a total failure of markets, which seems odd as the idea of the markets I thought included the capacity for anything to fail so that prices can be corrected – that the various markets haven’t been allowed to collapse would seem to me tend to suggest that market forces haven’t actually been in play. The efficiency of markets only operating when prices are allowed to move downwards as well as up, which is something governments aren’t terribly keen on. Amusingly for me markets were described as the wisdom of the crowd reaching a consensus on prices, which seems a lot like the consensus wisdom of the crowds decision making the anti market occupy/anonymous groups use. So you’ve one consensus model saying a very similar consensus model has been proven to have failed.

Also on the amusement front was a New York Times economist, so one of the experts that’s telling us all how to fix it and what’s wrong, took out a mortgage based purely on his having a job with no regards for his income and is now hugely in debt and at risk of losing the house he couldn’t afford. He did at least admit he should have known better and that he was taking out a dodgy mortgage – one does have to wonder if he can screw that up so well why should we listen to anything else he has to say. He may of course be atypical of economic experts – I’ll enjoy the schadenfreude regardless. It does however highlight that whilst we all busy blaming the greed and short termism of the banks we’ve been behaving in exactly the same way (I am of course painting with a broad brush here). The lesson of the program for me was that a lot of the people that invested in the idea that property prices would keep rising ignoring the age old adage of:
“Don’t invest what you can’t afford to lose”

In that regards one thing I’d never considered was the difference between “goods” and “assets” – something I hadn’t to be fair given any thought to. “Goods” are apparently things we buy to use, “assets” we buy to sell on, people buying “goods” to treat them as “assets” screws up the market. So the popular trend of buying houses not to live in but as things to sell to make money, stops the usual supply and demand price correction. Of course once we were all buying to get rich Governments weren’t going to let the market operate and cause us all to expereince the fact that “prices can go down as well as up”.

Now onto to the fun bit of Greenspan saying he was wrong, this was obviously quite enjoyable – except he said he believed that markets were self correcting but then said he didn’t let the market self correct and this proved his model was wrong. The governments during his tenure of being wrong acting to prevent asset markets slowing down thus proving that markets didn’t self correct? Which as I may have mentioned does kind of make me think we’ve not seen free markets actually in action. A side effect of asset prices being supported by the Government is that the rich get richer as by and large the richer you are the more assets you own (after all you only need so many ipods, cars etc.). Which would seem again to suggest to me that the income inequality we hear so much about is less due to the deliberate evilness of the rich so much as the Government acting to make the rich richer whilst borrowing more from the rich to do so. Why the Government would do this is an interesting question, almost as interesting as why we let them.

The current inequality in incomes was last matched by the 1920′s, when there was the same debt based inflation of the value of “assets” (unless I misunderstood what was said). Then I got confused again as apparently until recently house prices have been quite static as have wages (both adjusted for inflation), at least until we all started borrowing to buy houses as investment. The idea of wages and house prices being fairly stable doesn’t seem a terrible thing to me – until we all decided we need to borrow money we can’t afford to lose to invest in property we’re complaining is too expensive. Once we were all borrowing to invest it became a lot more profitable to lend us the money than put it into factories, and banks and the “evil” rich being sensible sorts lent us the money so they could make more of it. Quite what would have happened if we hadn’t all wanted investment properties and easy credit is another good question, but once enough of us were demanding it there was no way our Governments would deny us our bread and circuses and so the bubbles had to keep inflating and the printing presses had to start running. Quite why stock holders followed the civil servant and governmental lead of paying bonuses for failure, is a mystery the program didn’t touch on.

The last take away message of the program, which is the bit which annoyed me in the first place, was that over the last 30 years living standards have decreased for all but the very top. A quick poll on the walk the other day suggests either we were all at the very top or that this is abject nonsense. Anna Raccoons recent article also seems to suggest it may not be quite true (Claiming benefits? There’s an app for that).

I’m sure I’ve made many foolish mistakes in the above, if someone could be so kind as to explain it to me.

 

Yoinked directly from The Devils Kitchen from a rather excellent article by Bella Gerens, I think this really sums up a huge amount of what I find appealing and a good thing about the Libertarians:

Libertarians don’t fight with left-wingers, they fight with each other. It’s the only ‘mob’ you’ll ever see where the crowd hears a rousing speech and says to one another, ‘You know, I’m not sure I agree with him. He misses Friedman’s point about the fact that…’ and then argues all the way to the pub, where they’d all much rather be anyway.

 

Just for a change I’m really behind all the cool kids in getting round to comment on the recent Libertarian party debacle. I don’t know any of the people involved, though having read Anna Raccoons blog for quite a while if the counter claims against her were true it would be as disappointing as if her claims were true. The entire situation was really enough to make one lose heart entirely, having held quiet this long though does mean that more information has crept out and LPUK have joined the ranks of the major parties in going for the whitewash approach of a limited, unpublished investigation that defends the indefensible. The alternative report put out unofficially by one of those involved does not make for happy reading, one is left in agreement with Katabasis that LPUK “has become nothing short of a full on liability to have anything to do with.” Which may not be an issue as the party may not exist much longer which is in some ways a shame, but perhaps better it die quickly and young than divert peoples energies away from trying to pursue the goals it claimed to stand for.

So what next for fledging Libertarians like myself*? Do we decamp to one of the larger parties and try and influence them? UKIP would certainly welcome us** and some people whose writing I respect have jumped to that ship. I’m not quite ready to do that yet, despite having voted that way previously.

So what next, as the Rally against debt proved (and was discussed afterwards) we need to be better at organising ourselves to get any sort of libertarian message across, and maybe that can be cross party and maybe a loser grouping might well be the way forward. It’s certainly something that appeals to be, a libertarian pressure group, after all look how much influence all those fake charities wield. There’s really no need to be a political party to influence the political agenda these days. If any non-party association type thing springs up I think I’d happy muck in, we don’t need to agree on everythign or have all the answers to start adding a much needed voice of opposition to the general trend towards decreasing liberty and larger state, and maybe by avoiding becoming a political party we might achieve more. 38Degrees and the like suggest it’s very far from the worst way to go – one thing is for sure we need to build and keep up momentum otherwise we’ll always just be a few hundred (or less) standing around Westminster.

* Well sort of I’m probably more old liberal but I think a libertarian voice is vital as a counter balance in current politics – or as facebook might put it “it’s complex”

** Not technically me as I never quite got round to joining LPUK

 

OK I promise not to say too much more about the AV referendum, I’ve been and voted, and really most everything that could be said has been. However I’m seeing loads of pro-AV articles at the moment, and there is a huge fallacy they’re promoting that is really starting to get on my nerves. The claim that to win in AV you have to have majority support is just nonsense, as a simplistic example can show (well simplistic examples are popular with Yes2AV so I don’t see why I can’t use them).

Let’s consider 10 voters just because it makes the maths easy, and they’re voting for a whole 5 parties. Voting as follows:

Parties
Voters Party 1 Party 2 Party 3 Party 4 Party 5
Voter A 1 2 3 4
Voter B 1 2 2 3
Voter C 1 2 4 3
Voter D 1 2 4 3
Voter E 3 2 4 1
Voter F 2 1 3
Voter G 2 3 1
Voter H 1 2 3
Voter I 1 2 3
Voter G 1 2 3

So with out hypothetical votes cast lest see what happens:

Round one Party 1 and Party 2 both have 3 first preference votes, so more than the other parties so they go through. The parties with the least first preference votes now get dropped, so goodbye to parties 3 and 4. Party 5 got 2 votes so they go through to round two.

In round two Party 1 picks up one second preference vote giving it 4 votes.

Party 2 doesn’t pick up any second preference votes so still has 3 votes.

Party 5 also doesn’t have any second preference votes so still has two votes.

So that ends the counting and Party 1 wins with 40% of the vote and so gets in on a minority of the votes, when the electorate would rather have been governed by someone else. In fact on the strength of second preference votes Party3 is by far the most popular choice with a stonking 80% os the second preference votes. Too bad they got knocked out on the first count.

So there you go, AV still not making sure that the winning party actually has any support from the majority of the population. Fantastic.

Yes I know this is contrived, but it makes the maths simpler and the various, cat Vs. dogs and pubs Vs. coffee were equally contrived so as a popular idiom would have it “bite me”. Oh sorry for the lack of graphics, they’re really not my strong point, if someone wants to make a flash movie then be my guest.

 

So in a few hours people to start to vote on what we’re told is the most important matter for generations, how we get to pick our corrupt troughing MP’s every 5 years. They’ve generously given us the choice between no change or the absolutely smallest change possible. Though of course if we change to AV it would kill off any chance of introducing the real changes we need, as AV will have to be given a chance – 50 years or more to work out the bugs and let people get used to it (so goodbye to right to recall or anything useful like that). I’m afraid the stick we’re being offered is shitty at both ends.

Oddly this has led to a very poor campaign, the only bit of canvassing I’ve seen is a “No to AV” leaflet, didn’t even get the government guide to what the choices were. Unsurprisingly this doesn’t seem to have led to the most enlightened debate amongst the people I know, with some people claiming to have decided which way to vote just because one side at one point made a personal attack on someone on the other side. Now whilst that might be a good reason not to support a candidate or a party, the two choices we’re being given aren’t actually affected by how the campaigns are run.

Likewise what are we to make of a campaign that claims it’s for fairer votes, and thus increased democracy who’s campaigners put forward that AV will keep specific parties out of power. I mean just how little sense does that make:
Vote for fairer votes and make sure these parties I don’t like never get in
Surely that’s a reduction in democracy? As the standard says both sides have talked profound crud. The No to AV’s biggest bit of crud of course being to claim it’s far too complex.

Of course the AV side it ends tactical voting, which is also patent bollocks it may end first preference tactical voting – if we’re lucky. But that will only be because people know they can “waste” their first vote and then vote tactically on their second vote (as long as they’ve confident the people they don’t like won’t get in on the first round). The various choose a pub or go for coffee stuff put together by the AV side dumbing it down to the levels, where you have to suspect they agree with the No2AV side in thinking that it is all too complex for use poor proles. Likewise the idea that AV ensures that whoever wins must have got over 50% of the vote, is a simplification and only always true if everyone has to put a preference for all candidates otherwise it’s still possible for the winner to get in on a minority of votes so no change there then.

So as news thump says we shortly get to vote on which system is least shit, for when once every five years we randomly pick who’s going to steal from us for the next five years – having just been conned into thinking changing how we elect them will make any difference to their behaviour when we’ve still got no way to get rid of them.

I shall leave the last words on this false choice between two options chosen for us not by us ( I’d rather have a referendum on egtting out of the EU, or being able to recall MPS, myself) to Archbishop Cranmer:

“Tomorrow the UK is holding its second national referendum in its history. And this one is even more flawed than the first. In 1975, we were asked whether or not we wished to remain a member of the EEC, which we had joined two years earlier. That referendum ought, of course, to have preceded the selling of our birthright and the ‘pooling’ of our sovereignty: the retrospective plebiscite was more about uniting a fractious and fractured Labour Party than genuinely seeking a democratic mandate for winding back a thousand years of history. At least this time we are being asked in advance whether or not we wish to adopt the AV electoral system.”

Update Sorry I lied as I really must point you at an excellent piece over at Harry’s place about how pointless this tinkering with the system is.

 

Having been freed from the tyranny of saved links by dint of my computer crashing, I’m going to mutter about possibly the least interesting topic in poltics at the moment. Yes the “AV or not to AV” question, this is we’re told the most important thing to have happened for hundreds of years, a once in a generation chance to radically change our political system. to which I can only say “piffle” we’re being sold a bill of goods, being presented with a false choice.

If this is such an important question, why wasn’t it on all the party manifesto’s before the election? If this is such an important question how have we got to the point of a choice between only two systems with no debate in less than the space of a year? More than that who says this is our only chance? If the matter really is so important, why can’t we throw it back to our elected representatives and say “Nope not good enough try again”? Previous changes to our political settlement have been led by the people not imposed by the incumbent political elite. I’ve not seen a huge out cry demanding that we change our voting system, let alone that we change it to AV. Can you imagine the king turning up at Runnymede and telling the barons,
“Look you can either carry on as things were, or as an alternative I’ll let you write letters to me when you’re unhappy. What you want a parliament and rights? Sorry no can do – just as things were or writing letters”

That’s the false choice we’re being presented with, if we genuinely do want a new political settlement do we really want to leaves it’s details up to the incumbent bunch of proven corrupt party apparatchiks that sit in parliament? Or perhaps if a new settlement is needed it should actually be driven by the people – rather than letting a false grass roots movement made up of incumbent vested interests? Changing how we get people into power won’t stop them being corrupt, creating ways for us to get them out of power, like the proposed recall bill, might help. Though we are talking about people that have exempted themselves from the new anti-corruption legislation that will apply to us lesser mortals.

I’m not going to bother discussing the various merits or otherwise of AV vs. FPTP as I reject the choice. Let’s no throw out a system which has worked reasonably for hundred of years just because some corrupt thieving toe rags who got caught with their fingers in the till have drawn up a plan on the back of a fag packet to change the way we put their snouts in the trough (forgive my mixing of metaphors). They’ve still not sorted out the mess they made of “reforming” the lords, they’re pointedly ignoring the implications the regional assemblies and laws have for the act of union it self. So are these really the people we want to entrust changing our system of government with? Given their past performance do we really think the choices they’re deigning to give us are all of a sudden not motivated by self interest?

As a final thought I would suggest that if we wanted FPTP could be made a lot more representative if we the electorate actually voted for who we wanted to get in and not tactically. We might surprise ourselves and change things – after all tactical voting helps make the main parties so terribly safe and similar. If they start getting knocked into 4th or 5th place by small parties that seem to actually listen to what people want, who knows they might start paying attention as well. In the mean time how about that right of recall?

 

Just saw this on Facebook via a friend and it really is an excellent idea that’s worth doing and passing on:

‘Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go into any bookshops you may pass and move as many copies of Blair’s new autobiography to the ‘crime’ section as possible.’

 

Purple People Eater Now as promised/threatened I’m afraid I’m returning to the matter of the “take back parliament” coalition. Firstly though a correction to my earlier post in that Mark Ross appears to have no connection to Ekklesia except they published a puff blog for Take Back Parliament, so sorry about that.

Anyway onto looking at how they all sort of hang together, I’ve had to be quite restrictive in this as other wise it all spins out into far too wide a web very quickly. so I’m sticking to only looking at one or two degrees of separation. I’m also having to use a rather horrid table as being fairly new to this presenting this information in a useful fashion is quite tricky.

So anyway hopefully this will make sense and shed some more light on the Take Back Parliament coalition, who doesn’t seem to be that keen on open and transparent or that bothered about foreign influence on our democratic system.

This table just tracks down those groups listed at the bottom of Take Back Parliament and pulls out odds and sods of possibly interesting information. Before we get to that though a few facts about “Take Back Parliament”.

Take Back parliament
is co-ordinated by Mark Ross, Head of Campaigns for POWER2010
the media campaign/website appears to being run by Blue State Digitial a mainly American company but with a UK subsidiary BLUE STATE DIGITAL UK LIMITED (Company No. 06873977).

Now onto that coalition:

Coaltion member Controlled by Supporters/Partners in common Client of
Power 2010 The Democratic Reform Company Ltd
Company No. 07087541
Lord David Trevor Shutt of Greetland
  • OBV (Operation Black Vote)
  • BASSAC
  • NEF (New Economic Forum)
  • Electoral Reform Society
  • Compass
  • Unlock Democracy
  • Open Democracy
  • Ekklesia
  • 38 Degrees
Blue State Digital
Electoral Reform Society ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY LIMITED
Company No. 00958404
- Blue State Digital
APC
SoapBox
Enoughs Enough Domain registered via an anonymising service - Athenaeum Limited
Ekklesia EKKLESIA LIMITED
Company No. 05831226
- -
AVAAZ.org Domain registered by a private US individual – Ricken Patel,
organization founded by
Move On and Res Publica
- -
Compass Neal Lawson
Jon Cruddas
- SoapBox
Open Democracy OPENDEMOCRACY LIMITED
Company No. 03855274
previous: POWER AND DEMOCRACY LIMITED
  • Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust
    - Lord David Trevor Shutt of Greetland
  • The Tinsley Foundation
-
OBV Charter 88
  • Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust
  • Electoral Commission
  • Home Office
SoapBox
Vot for a change Electoral Reform Society
  • John Sauven, Greenpeace
  • Neal Lawson, Compass
  • Ken Ritchie, Electoral Reform Society
  • Pam Giddy, Power Inquiry
  • Wes Streeting, NUS
  • Peter Facey, Unlock Democracy
  • Richard Grayson, Social Liberal Forum
  • Benedict Southworth, World Development Movement
  • Dr Matthew Sowemimo, Director – Social Liberal Forum
  • Katherine Rake, Fawcett Society
Blue State Digital
SoapBox
Unlock Democracy Unlock Democracy
Company No. 02440899
Formerly:
09/07/1991 CHARTER 88 LIMITED
02/05/2008 CHARTER 88
  • Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust
  • Enoughs Enough
  • Electoral Commission
  • European Commission
  • Poverty & Environment Trust
SoapBox
Hang em Open Democracy Ekklesia -
BASSAC
Charity number: 1028784
Company number: 2869337
- Novas Scarman -
Greenpeace Without knowing just which bit of Greenpeace not even attempting this
Friends of the Earth - - -
Fawcett society
Charity No: 1108769
- - -
Democracy Matters
Charity No: 1108769
Titus Alexander – Novas Scarman Group
  • BASSAC
  • Novas Scarman Group
  • The Democracy Trust
  • Unlock Democracy
-
Social Liberal Forum James Graham (Secretary and website manager) is currently the Campaigns and Communications Manager for Unlock Democracy - -
National Union of Students Not attemtping this one either
Muslim Council of Britain
charity 1084651
Not attemtping this one either
British Muslims for Secular Democracy
Company No. 05905516
- - -
World Development Movement WORLD DEVELOPMENT MOVEMENT
Company No. 02098198
WORLD DEVELOPMENT MOVEMENT TRUST LIMITED
Company No. 03188734
charity 1064066
- APC

So there you have it quite a cosy coalition, not quite sure about the grass roots element of it, but there you go.

Just to have a quick look at some of those names, I’ve already mentioned Blue State Digital – who also have as a client those well known “grassroots” campaigners “38 Degrees”. Soap Box are apprently “communications agency for think tanks, campaigns, politicians and NGOs” with an interesting client list, so a lot like BLue State Digital. The other interesting one which cropped up in a few of those groups DNS records was APC – The association for progressive communications who apparently help grass roots movements like say “the elctoral reform society” and have an intersting list of funders.

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with any of this as such, it’s just a tad obscure and international and not that much that speaks of a ground swell of popular non-activist self-interested involvement. The grass roots bit of thier campaign appears to have gone a bit quiet , despite there still being no-sign of PR on the political agenda, just fixed term parliaments with AV.

Anyway in the interest of our new open and transparent plotics, that’s how the take back parliament campaign and its coalition roughly fit together – at just a very few degrees of seperation.

For those that are interested this data mainly came from domain registration look ups, the various groups websites and then lookups at Companies House, The Charities Commission and the FSA Mutuals Registrar.

© 2011 Anonymong Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha