Unless you've been living under a rock for the past week or so (or in another country, in which case you're forgiven), you're going to know that 10:35pm on Thursday is when the British National Party are going to make their state-sanctioned television debut. Sure, they've been on the TV before (check out here and here), but this is different. They'll be on Question Time, taking questions from the public just like a legitimate political party.

But wait, you say, they ARE a legitimate political party! Almost one million people voted for them on June 4th! It's shocking that it happened, state of Britain today, we have to engage with these people, yada yada yada. Bollocks, I say. I'm absolutely on the same page as Peter Hain, who argued today that the BNP is not a legitimate party, because of their refusal to accept members from ethnic minorities (except on pain of litigation).

The BNP is not a party. It's a bunch of thugs. Oh yeah, I said it. I'm not that nervous, there are only twelve of them in my constituency. We know they're racist, they have a low opinion of women, and generally they're odious bullies. I've been asked to join the BNP, so they've been friendlier to me than usual, and I still don't like them. (For reference, I said no. I pointed out that I'm a bit foreign and they wouldn't have me, even though I admit I am a member of the Celtic Irish folk community.) Putting them on the BBC says to people, "These people have valid opinions. You might not like them, but they're worth being heard. Actually, lots of people agree with the BNP. And by the way, Nick Griffin's hospitality in the green room? That's your licence fee." There's a difference between saying that the British National Party have a right to free speech and saying that we all have to listen to it.

When Nick Griffin was invited to speak at the Oxford Union, I was against it. It mean that you could put "BNP" and "Oxford Union" in the same sentence, without a negative. It legitimised them. It's the same with the BBC. I understand that there are political impartiality rules forcing the BBC's hand on this, but it's not yet clear whether the BBC actually have to invite the racists on the show.

I've marched through London against the BNP. I've posted leaflets through letterboxes in Barking and Dagenham. I've been to Love Music Hate Racism concerts and handed out leaflets at Tube stations. I'm going to be outside BBC Television Centre on Thursday with London Young Labour , joining both comrades who support a no-platform policy and others who don't but who hate the BNP and everything they stand for. Here are the details - hope to see you there.

You probably know by now that the Guardian was prevented earlier today from reporting on a particular question that a particular MP was asking in Parliament today. They posted an article on their website at 8:30 last night explaining their gagging order, and outlining just what they couldn't say. The first I came across it was this morning on Twitter, closely followed by Iain Dale's diary. (God, I've mentioned Dale twice in a row now. I'm blaming the 'flu for a temporary absence of reason.) What the massed blogosphere/twitterverse were able to do, which the Guardian couldn't, was to name names; the question referred to the Trafigura case.

Now, I only know about Trafigura from a couple of articles in last week's papers. Nasty oil company buys cheap crude oil, processes it, hands toxic slurry to unscrupulous hauliers who dump it in towns in the Cote d'Ivoire, where people get ill from fumes. So far, so yuk. Of course, once the big blogs had made the link between the mysterious Commons question today and Trafigura (whose lawyers had taken the newspaper to court), it was difficult to suppress the news. Within hours, #trafigura was one of the top trending topics on Twitter, and pretty much everybody knew what was going on by the end of the day.

For me, this really illustrated the power of social media as citizen journalism. Had I been observing questions in the House today, and had I read the paper last week, I probably would have put two and two together and linked Evil Oil Company to Shocking Media Censorship. (I'm smart like that.) The beauty of this medium is that I could have then let two hundred-odd people know immediately, who would cascade it on, until (in rather less than six degrees of separation) it reached a journalist/prominent blogger/someone more important than me. I don't know how the original link was made, but I'd be pretty sure that it was someone making a personal realisation, then sharing it with the world.

So is social media the future of campaigning? Maybe not. But it sure makes it harder to suppress information these days.

It's been a while since I've blogged here, for various reasons, mostly personal. Since I've been here last, I've managed to move house, get engaged (expect lots of posts on feminist weddings!) and accumulate some of the trappings of a real person. Still, it hasn't been all quiet; I've been posting on LabourList here and here.

So what's a more enticing subject to kick off blogging with than open primaries? OK, I know, I know. This is still vaguely a political blog - it doesn't have to be exciting. I wasn't able to make the Progress debate this evening, where I understand the overwhelming consensus was that open primaries were just about the best idea since steam power. I have to say that I'm uncomfortable with the idea for a few different reasons:

• Primaries encourage the politics of populism, rather than encouraging effective politicians. Just watching the Tories' Iain Dale in his open primary campaign in Bracknell is enough to illustrate clearly to me that a little bit of celebrity (notoriety?) will get you everywhere. Of course it's a massive advantage to be the most well-known candidate in a primary; you'll be a draw for the crowds, and you'll swing undecideds through sheer name-recognition. I understand that open primaries are partly designed to bring pillars of the community to the fore; those unsung local heroes who everyone nods to on the street and sends a Christmas card to. But let's be honest, it's likely to degenerate into a crass popularity contest. Anyone familiar with an Oxford Union election will get my drift at this point.

Sure, Labour occasionally run vaguely famous candidates for Parliament. We've got the only MP with an Oscar, while Dave Rowntree, Blur drummer and Vote For a Change advocate, is running in the Cities of London and Westminster. However, under the current system, they still had to face selection processes in their local CLPs, where a small core of committed Labour members are responsible for choosing a candidate. Which brings me to my next point:

• CLPs play a valuable scrutiny role. So I'm Josie Public, having voted for Candidate X in my local primary election. He later goes on to become the MP. (There are some suggestions that the he is fairly accurate; open primaries don't tend to favour women. Or indeed ethnic minorities or members of the LGBT community.) I don't really hear that much about how he does for the next five years; certainly no more than any other constituent, primary voter or not. In our current system, CLP members know damn well how hard the MP works for his or her constituency, because they see them every week leafleting, canvassing and at party functions. If they're not seeing them, there's cause for concern. Having a smallish group of people who care strongly enough about their party to be involved week-in, week-out, being able to watch what the MP is doing in the area, is invaluable for the party as a whole. If there's a problem, the CLP should spot it first, before the local press does.

I'm not for one moment arguing that open primaries remove the need for CLPs, but they do remove the primary censorial power that they hold. If a CLP can't de-select an MP, it can't exercise appropriate control over poor MP behaviour. Seems to me that this is more important than ever in the wake of the expenses affair.

• Finally, open primaries are a knee-jerk reaction to the problems in our system. Note to open primary advocates; we are NOT in America. Yeah, I know Obama's very popular at the moment (particularly in Scandinavia), but it doesn't mean that transposing the bits of the US system that seem to work is going to be particularly effective. I know that Progress and others supporting open primaries don't see them as an effective measure on their own. Still, I think that the other measures being discussed, like House of Lords reform, tighter controls on MPs' expenses, proportional representation, etc. are both necessary and sufficient to stem the recent malaise. We just don't need to have open primaries.

Thoughts?

I can't help blogging about the Norwich North by-election today, it's kind of inescapable. So if you don't want to be reminded of the results, look away NOW:

Conservatives: 13,591
Labour: 6,243
Lib Dems: 4,803
UKIP: 4,068
Greens: 3,350

On the face of it, a pretty convincing victory for Chloe Smith, the Tory candidate. (I'm actually glad that the people of Norwich North have seen fit to elect a young woman, even a Conservative one.) Still, even discounting the crazies (the BNP got almost a thousand votes), it's clear that more people in Norwich voted for a progressive candidate than for a Tory. (Fair enough, I'm not counting UKIP, who tend to be disenchanted Tory voters). Fourteen thousand, three hundred and ninety-six of them, to be precise, wanted a Labour candidate or a Lib Dem or a Green.

I'm beginning to think it's time to revive tactical voting. I disagree with the Lib Dems on substantial issues. That's why I'm not a Lib Dem, interestingly enough. Still, if I live in a constituency where it's a choice between a Lib Dem and a Tory MP, where the Labour candidate is unlikely to get a look in, I'd strongly consider voting for the Lib Dem candidate. I've blogged before about my feelings on proportional representation, but until it happens, I'm not ashamed to advocate Labour voters tactically choosing Lib Dems in Lib Dem/Tory contests, and Lib Dems doing the same when their candidate can't take the seat.

I'm pretty unhappy with how the Labour campaign was run. I spent last Saturday up in Norwich with Young Labour (look, here's me!), so I've done my bit and I feel entitled to criticise. The fox-hunting leaflets were plain stupid, Crewe and Nantwich all over again, while choosing a candidate who was relatively recently on the other side wasn't a particularly good idea. On the other hand, the Tory campaign was great; their literature was very strong and senior presence in the constituency was admirable. I wasn't surprised with the 16.5% swing, particularly as Labour didn't field the candidate that the voters wanted.

On the other hand, this is a by-election. There's no way that, in the general election, the Shadow Cabinet can each make three visits to each constituency. (I'd like to see them try.) They don't have the same amount of resources to shovel at each contest. If it took all of that, plus a pretty shoddy Labour campaign, to win this seat, then it's not so much of a victory as they're claiming. I think it's fair to claim a (near) victory for the progressive left.

Cheer up lads, it's only a by-election.

Currently listening to: Los Campesinos! - It's Never That Easy, Is It?

I never agree with Iain Dale. Ever. Just typing that subject line made me die a little inside. However, his recent blog post about compensation for rape victims is spot on. Particularly worrying is the comparison between contracting AIDS through rape and losing a leg; I'm not sure that those two issues, while both obviously serious, can be directly compared and evaluated in the same way.

More worrying even than that, however, is the idea that a woman's criminal record can be taken into account in judging compensation claims against perpetrators of rape. No woman (or no man, for that matter) deserves to have their bodily integrity violated. It doesn't matter if you're a sex worker, if you're married and your husband is the perpetrator or if you're wearing a short skirt on a night out. Nor does it matter if you've got a previous conviction, whether it be murder or traffic offences. Nobody deserves to be raped. Taking people's backgrounds into account just serves to divide rape victims into angels and whores - it must be worse for a woman to be pounced on in an alley by a stranger than for a trafficked Eastern European prostitute who is raped time and time again by her "clients", because the first woman is "good" or "virtuous" or whatever. It's classic victim-blaming behaviour and it has to stop. So good on Iain for raising this issue - it just goes to show that, however much we like to bash the Tories, sometimes they're people too.

Currently listening to: The Flaming Lips - Can't Get You Out Of My Head

Had a look at my bank balance today. Always a scary proposition at the end of the month. Anyway, had a look at my direct debits, which got me thinking about who I contribute money to. Every month, I pay my union dues (I'm a proud Unite member) and a couple of quid to Amnesty. I'm also shelling out for my Labour Party membership, plus Compass and the Fabian Society. It's not that much monetarily, but I started thinking about the degree of engagement I have with each of these organisations.

I'm actually not paying that much to Labour (£19 per year, a massive 58% increase on last year's subs, but still less than I'd spend on a night out in London), but it's certainly the organisation I'm nost engaged with, as a blogger, local activist and Campaigns Officer for London Young Labour. I'm also pretty involved with Compass, contributing to and blogging on events regularly. On the other hand, my three quid a month to Amnesty International is pretty much the only engagement I have these days. Sure, I shoot off the occasional letter (well, e-mail) to the Sudanese ambassador or the Burmese military regime, but I haven't attended an Amnesty event or rally in a while. Is the fact that I contribute just that little bit more in terms of money an excuse for me not to get involved? Is money worth as much as action?

I think that I need to step up my game with regard to my Amnesty membership. It's not enough just to contribute; I can make as much of a difference by sending a letter or volunteering to steward an event or forwarding emails to friends. So I'm publicly pledging, at least to sart off with, that I'll send a letter on behalf of Amnesty once a week from now on. I'll post it up on the blog so that you can check it out and contribute yourself if you can. Organisations don't just need money, they need time and participation and action.

Currently listening to: Joni Mitchell - All I Want

I am a bad blogger. I can only apologise for my lack of posts over the past few days. I was mostly going to meetings that I can now blog about. Oh, and seeing Harry Potter 6... ahem.

On Tuesday night, I caught a bit of the Compass/Demos debate on communitarianism. There are already some great write-ups of the event on the Compass website, but there were two minor things mentioned that I thought were pretty interesting and worth highlighting.

Firstly, Jon Cruddas spoke very eloquently about how the current "interregnum" caused by the economic crisis is creating space to discuss the philosophical frameworks within which we develop our politics. It's certainly been my experience recently that "-isms" are being bandied about like they're going out of fashion, and that's no bad thing. I identify as a socialist first and foremost; my membership of the Labour Party is a reflection of my inherent socialism. Anyway, Jon then went on to suggest that, over the next few years, we're likely to see different poles of opinion emerging within Labour. In particular, he highlighted:

• a Liberal pole - possibly coalescing around James Purnell
• a Fabian ideological group
• a group of "scientific socialists" - maybe the emergence of a Labour Evan Harris?
• a return to ethical Labour and democratic socialist policies, coming from Compass

Of course, facing into a general election, it isn't necessarily helpful to have ideological schisms within the party. The Manifesto needs to be written on a sound ideological basis that the whole Party can subscribe to (well, at least the key bits). On the other hand, I think it's really healthy that there is philosophical debate going on within the Labour Party; making our arguments internally can only serve to provide us with practice when we have to make them to the nation. I'm actually really excited about the next few years for Labour - I think we're going to have an ideological Renaissance. In particular, looking at the categories Cruddas picked up on, I can see democratic socialism having more of an impact within the party, being supported by Compass, a strong and innovative campaigning and policy machine.

Secondly, Phillip Blond (not my favourite speaker of the night, as you might guess) spoke at some length around the politics of ownership. He said that he, and the Conservatives, want people to own in different ways, based on their "position in the social spectrum". Some of the ways he highlighted included shared ownership and right-to-buy for properties, and microfinancing for "the people at the bottom". Odious rhetoric aside, this particular pleb thought that it was worrying that the Tories are proposing an "investment system for the poor". While it may well help some people in need, providing services just for the poor perpetuates class divides in society. It's the same with the idea of the Post Bank; rather than the Post Office becoming a bank for financially excluded people, who are typically in certain social classes and suffering from multiple disadvantage, you need to attract more middle-income, middle-class customers to make it a going concern. Partly to capitalise the bank, but more importantly, to remove the social stigma attached to services "for poor people". Blond's Victorian view just isn't going to cut it. We need to be speaking out about what the Tories are actually going to do for excluded individuals and communities - Labour can offer people a hand up, rather than a hand out.

Currently listening to: Radiohead - High and Dry

Two of the top stories on BBC News at the moment are that women in Khartoum, Sudan have been lashed for wearing trousers, while women participating in a mass wedding in India have been forced to undergo virginity tests. Both of these stories have a strong element of state oppression of women; it's the state-sanctioned Sharia court which has sentenced the Sudanese women to forty lashes, despite them being from the mostly Christian and animist south of the country, while the virginity tests were forced upon these women before a state-run ceremony in order to receive a dowry from the state.

I pride myself on, in my own small way, fighting for women's rights in this country. Women in the UK still lose their jobs because they get pregnant, we still suffer sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace, we still earn less than men on average, despite higher educational attainment. We still fight to be taken seriously and for our caring work to be valued. This is a salutary reminder, though, of how much we have to be grateful for as feminists in this country. I can cast my vote, I can drive, I can wear whatever clothes I want, I can go out on my own, I can make choices about my own body; all rights denied to our sisters in other countries. We have a lot to be thankful to the women's movement for. We also have a responsibility to speak out about these abuses; to lobby our MPs, to campaign for freedom. I'm going to be writing to my MP about these cases, asking him to put pressure on the Sudanese and Indian embassies. I hope you will too.

Currently listening to: Modest Mouse - The Ocean Breathes Salty

Walking down the South Bank today, I was delighted to find an art installation by Yayoi Kusama covering the trees by the river. She's a great Japanese artist, who I first came across a couple of years ago on Jonathan Ross' Japanorama documentary series. She really likes dots. She covers everything in dots; that's kind of her thing. Anyway, she's wrapped the trunks of all of the trees on the South Bank with red and white polka-dot material, as part of the Hayward Gallery's current exhibition, Walking in my Mind.

So far, so good. Bit of public art on a Monday afternoon. However, there were some very tasteful little signs at the bases of all of the trees, pointing out that it was a piece of art and asking people not to write on the tree trunks. What really saddened me was that this polite request had been wholeheartedly ignored - each one of the twenty or so trees was covered with scrawled names and dates from ground level until about eight feet up. They seemed to be mostly from tourists, with "Maria luvs Tony 4eva" being the kind of content we're talking about. Nothing that could remotely be construed as graffiti in the actually-it-takes-a-lot-of-talent sort of way, just mindless vandalism of a piece of public art. Twice in ten minutes, I actually saw people writing on the trees, in full view of thousands of people wandering along the promenade. The expectation was, obviously, that since of lots of other people had done it, it was obviously OK.

It's reminded me again that I really have to read Thaler's new-ish book on behavioural economics, Nudge. It was fairly obvious that you weren't meant to write on the art, but people did it anyway. Are there ways to dissuade people from this sort of thing? Anyway, it really struck me that people are quite happy to do what the person in front of them does without particularly thinking it through. Now, if only we could replicate some of that behaviour in the polling stations... joke.

Currently listening to: Sonic Youth - Swimsuit Issue

We were talking in the pub yesterday evening about LGBT Labour's slogan t-shirts about not kissing Tories, which I think are a great conversation starter (plus, we definitely need more of a sense of humour in the Labour Party!). Anyway, it got me thinking about politics and relationships. For the record, and in case anyone dredges up some Facebook photos I'd prefer to see buried, yes, I have kissed a Tory. It was at Oxford, it was difficult to avoid it. But that was all a long time ago...

I've noticed while canvassing that households of voters typically all vote the same way. I've rarely come across a husband and wife who vote for different parties, although it's not unheard of. The more that people are involved in politics, the less likely it is to happen. Among my Labour friends, I can't think of anyone dating anyone with strong views about another party, although some partners might be far less interested in politics.

I have to say, it makes things much easier to see someone who's as invested in the same party as you. As Campaigns Officer for London Young Labour, weekend lie-ins are at a bit of a premium and it takes a special sort of person to say "Alright, dear, I know it's eight in the morning on a Saturday, but I'll get up with you and come halfway across London to canvass for a council by-election." Sometimes he even makes breakfast. I was lucky enough to meet my partner through LYL (canvassing in Brent for Dawn Butler, to be specific, although we're as likely to claim that we met at a gig, depending on who we're talking to). I've also had some disastrous dates with LYL members before I met him, which just goes to show that being a Labour Party member doesn't mean that you can't also be a typical useless man.

I guess it's similar to the way that some Christian friends of mine feel about dating; it's such an important part of their lives that they couldn't countenance a serious relationship with someone who doesn't share that with them. It's certainly true that now I can't see myself considering a relationship with someone uninterested in politics, or worse, someone whose allegiance lies with another party. As an ex-boyfriend now works as a Lib Dem researcher, I've obviously gotten more hardline about this as I've gotten more involved with the party.

I'm really interested in hearing what you all think about this - would you kiss a Tory?

*All names have been omitted to avoid embarrassment. Mostly on their parts...

Currently listening to: Frank Turner - Romantic Fatigue