Politics, Eh?

Charles Clarke - crazy man

2006-04-26T14:10:00.000Z

Apparently, Charles Clarke is a misunderstood man. He entered politics to make life better for more people. It could fool you, this rhetoric. Yesterday, Clarke, as ever and on his apparently downward spiral, seemed to lose it when he wrote an article in The Guardian accusing all and sundry - and particularly in the media - of being sensationalist, melodramatic and essentially full of garbage.

What prompted this bizarre outburst? It's because Clarke (and Tony Blair too) are increasingly frustrated, angry and saddened by people criticising them for being authoritarian, totalitarian, destroyers of civil liberties, virtual dictators who are breaching and destroying the rule of law. Whatever gave anyone that idea?! The government has introduced a huge variety of legislation which allows people to be held without charge or trial for long periods; it will make biometric ID cards compulsory by 2010 if it wins the next election; it breached international law to commit and conduct an illegal war of invasion and occupation in Iraq, based on what we now know to be false disclosures; it tried to introduce the legislative and regulatory reform bill recently which would allow a minister to amend, pass or repeal any legislation without having to refer it to Parliament; and it has passed legislation that makes it illegal to express an opinion if it "glorifies" terrorism. It was only several weeks ago also that Clarke was complaining bitterly that the media did not always present the news the way it should be (i.e. the way the government spin would have it presented) - heavens knows what next? Perhaps he will try to introduce a bill that obliges broadcasters and papers to have all their content approved by the Home Office!

Sadly, whilst I do believe that Clarke, Blair and the others honestly think they are doing what is best for the country and whilst I do not believe that they will seize power indefinitely, they have to face up to facts and realsie that they are fundamentally damaging (perhaps irreperably) basic civil liberties and human rights. They may think now that these will be used only to hurt those that deserve it, such as terrorists and criminals, but what will future governments do? Also, they need to examine how their new anti-libertarian new laws are being used now - as evidence, you only need look at the mother of dead soldier (killed in Iraq) who was arrested under the draconian anti-terrorism laws for daring to read out a list of the Iraq dead outside Downing Street or the Labopur Party activist who was also arrested under the terrorism acts when he dared to shout "rubbish" at a Cabinet minister during a Labour conference speech last year.

The government may think it knows best, but already its anti-rights laws are being abused by over-zealous police, so what for the future?

Demosthenes

Sign a petition to protest against Thames Water

2006-04-06T14:22:00.000Z

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/thames-water-protest

Please follow the link to a petition concerning Thames Water. Please sign if you are a Thames Water customer and are dissatisfied with their 'service.'

It is amazing what you can find out about a company from public records.

Here is the text of the petition:

SIGN BELOW IF WANT TO REGISTER YOUR DISGUST AT THAMES WATER FOR RISING PRICES, POOR SERVICE, LACK OF INVESTMENT AND PANDERING TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS!

SIGN BELOW IF YOU WANT THAMES WATER TO SPEND MORE MONEY ON FIXING LEAKS WITHOUT INCREASING OUR BILLS!

THIS PETITION WILL BE SENT TO THAMES WATER, THE GOVERNMENT AND OFWAT, THE WATER REGULATOR.

Hosepipe Ban

On Monday, 3 April 2006, Thames Water introduced a hose-pipe ban on its 5 million household customers. The ban will affect an estimated 8 million people. Thames Water has stated that the ban is necessary to preserve scarce water resources through what is expected to be a dry summer. If the region does not enjoy more rainfall, Thames Water may introduce further emergency measures, which may eventually culminate in all domestic water supplies being cut off, forcing people to obtain their water from standpipes in the street.

Millions of litres leaked every day

However, it is estimated that a staggering 914 million litres is leaked every single day from water mains under the control of Thames Water. That is enough water to fill 11.4 million baths every single day or, in other words, 1½ baths for every Thames Water customer. If these leaks were fixed – if even half were fixed! – would we need a hosepipe ban? Would we live under the threat of supplies being cut off?

Thames Water has blamed the leaks on an ageing network of water mains and claims that it is pending £500,000 per day to fix the leaks. THIS IS CLEARLY NOT ENOUGH!

Hundreds of millions in dividends for shareholders

Thames Water may not direct enough money to fix leaks, but it has found a staggering £141.2 million to pay in dividends to its corporate shareholders for the financial year ended 31 March 2005. In 2003/4, it was £136.1m. In fact, here’s a list of Thames Water’s dividends obtained from its own Annual Reports from 1997:

1997 £136.6 million
1998 £643.4 million
1999 £891 million
2000 £117.2 million
2001 £122.5 million
2002 £126.6 million
2003 £136.1 million
2004 £141.2 million

Price rises

The average water bill for Thames Water for the same period from 1997 to 2005 has risen from £201 to £246, a huge 19%. In 2005, Thames Water announced that in the next 5 years, average prices would rise by a further 24%. If it were not enough that their prices rose in real terms by an enormous 44% from 1989 (when privatisation happened) to 1999, they now plan on hitting the customers for a further staggering price rise. BUT WHERE ARE THE IMPROVEMENTS? WHY ARE WE FACING A HOSEPIPE BAN?

Millions in retained profits

The customers must pay more even though Thames Water loses a third of all of its water in leaks every day and even though Thames Water announced in its most recent Annual Report that it currently has £57.3 million in retained profits. WHY ISN’T THIS MONEY SPENT ON FIXING LEAKS? WE ASK AGAIN - WHY ARE WE FACING A HOSEPIPE BAN?

What you can do

· Please sign this petition
· Write to your local MP
· Write to OFWAT
· Complain to Thames Water

Thank you for your time.

Demosthenes

Water Companies - greedy, inefficient or both?

2006-04-04T09:55:00.000Z

Hampstead Heath by June (pictured left)
Hosepipe bans came into force yesterday for 10 regions across southern England. If you are caught breaching the ban by watering your garden or cleaning your car with a hose, you are liable for a £1,000 fine. Of course, if you are Thames Water, for argument's sake, you can allow 914 million litres of water per day (which equates to approximately 159 litres per household per day in the Thames Water catchment area) to be lost due to leaks in faulty pipes with complete and utter impunity! Marvellous. I knew privatisation was good for something.

Thames Water protest, naturally. This bastion of community care and good practice boasts that it is spending £500,000 per day in fixing the pipes that cause the leaks. Here's a newsflash - it clearly is not enough. Instead of pandering to the shareholders and it directors' grotesque pay increases, why doesn't Thames Water undertake to reduce the amount of leakage by a certain percentage (say 25%) within a certain period (say 3 years)? I guess, however, that dividends and pay increases come before providing a decent service of a basic human need to millions of ever-increasingly exasperated customers.

Take a look at Thames Water's last audited annual accounts, prepared as at 31 December 2004. It is with great interest that I note that the aggregate salaries for the 4 executive directors rose by a staggering 64% from £873,000 for 2003 to £1,359,000 for 2004. It also note that Thames Water had such a bumper year in 2004 that it could afford to pay £141.2 million in dividends to its shareholders and still retain a further £48.2 million as retained profit. Amazing. Amongst Thames Water's operational costs will be found the £182 million (or so) per year that is required to fix leaks, so why don't the board resolve to apply more of that retained profit towards further leakage management.

By the end of the summer, I might be having to get my drinking water from a standpipe in the road, but Thames Water will still be sitting pretty and taking insufficient action to resolve its all too apparent inefficiencies.

And, as a final point, when O when are we going to introdcue compulsory metering for water in the UK? We overuse as a nation as it is, but with a fair system of pay-as-you-use metering, consumption would plummet as, simultaneously, water reserves would replenish. See my old article ("Water, Water..." you will need to scroll down the link) for a fuller piece: http://politics-eh.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_politics-eh_archive.html

© Demosthenes

Will Charles Clarke Never Give Up?

2006-03-31T13:43:00.000Z

Charles Clarke (pictured above)

Big Brother (pictured right) relaxes by the pool

Mr Clarke finally has to back down on his manifesto-breaking proposal to make ID cards all but compulsory prior to the end of this Parliament and, no sooner has he skulked away with a bloodied nose, he is back, bolder than ever proposing that even if people opt out of having an ID card when they next renew their passport, they will still be expected the pay the full amount which would be payable to obtain a new passport and a new ID card!

Yet again, Mr Clarke wants to make ID cards compulsory by the back door, for who is going to pay the additional £50 or £60 and not get an ID card, when they may well be compulsory by 2010? And if sensible citizens do refuse to succumb to being the state's biometricly branded indentured slave, they will have to pay what is in effect a poll tax on their refusal to erode their own civil rights.

As a Machiavellian ploy, it's a stroke of genius, but it should yet again leave right minded people deeply concerned about the state of our rights in modern Britain.

Demosthenes

Israeli Elections

2006-03-31T09:06:00.000Z

There has been much discussion this week about the Israeli elections and the general consensus amongst the West and those who favour a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestine issue is that the result provides hope. Finally, the right-wing Likud party, led by the reactionary Benjamin Netanyahu, has been knocked from its domineering pedestal. Likud has led the debate for the last 25 years and peace has been no nearer due to their desire for a Greater Israel - in other words, annexing part, if not all, of the illegal occupied territories - but this week saw their Knesset seats shrink from over 40 to just 12.

The largest party is the more centrist Kadima party, established by Ariel Sharon and now led by Ehud Olmert, with 29 seats. Although it is welcome that Kadima favours removing most Israeli settlors from the occupied territories and then bulldozing the illegal settlements, the principal drawback to the policy is that it is unilateral and will involve no negotiation with the Palestinian ruling authorities and certainly not with the new Hamas-led government. Giving up some land for peace is preferable to giving up no land, but surely a unilateral 'resolution' will only lead to further problems in the future. For example, it is acknowledged that some settlements on the border of Israel and the occupied territories are now so large, so entrenched that even some Palestinians would permit them to remain as they are, provided, of course, that the Palestinians receive something in return. A negotiated settlement may produce such a mutually acceptable position, but a unilateral decision almost certainly will not. In particular, it is noted that Kadima and Olmert may well be planning in maintaining some settlements which lie deep in occupied lands and in strategic positions which make any truly independent Palestinian state non-viable. A unilateral action on such settlements is no use to anyone in the long term.

Kadima and Olmert must realise that now is the best chance for a negotiated peace. Kadima's principal colleague in government will be the Labour Party of Peretz, which took 20 seats, and which favours a negotiated settlement. Perhaps Olmert will think that he can bribe Labour with promises of social regeneration and social justice packages as Israel's economy sinks further into the mire, causing a further widening of the already large gap between rich and poor, but it would be a mistake to pass up the opportunity to at least attempt the solve the most pressing problem. In Peretz, he will surely have a valuable ally in any negotiations. Also, Hamas have shown their resolve for a pathway to initial discussions by maintaining a ceasefire for over a year, which has recently been extended by another year. Although Hamas will need to amend its constitution to reflect Israel's right to exist, I believe that they want to do business and these appear tyo be the indications from the region itself. It would be another grave mistake, a stupid mistake if the new Israeli government overlooked the largest, most powerful political party in Palestine when formulating any plan for ceding land for peace.

The election results are not perfect - they have not stopped the construction of the so-called "apartheid" wall, they have not stopped Israeli forces from closing checkpoints into parts of Gaza so that this week, Gaza ran out of flour, they have not stopped the endemic racism, but there is a better hope for peace in the region than there has been for at least 10 years.

© Demosthenes

ID cards compulsory by 2010 - perhaps

2006-03-30T12:29:00.000Z

Last night the government finally struck a deal with the troublesome Lords over ID cards. Four times the Lords were asked to pass a bill through their House, approving - what in effect was - the complusory introduction of ID cards by forcing people applying for new passports to also apply for and receive a biometric ID card. Four times, the Lords defeated the proposal, much to the monting anger of Charles Clarke, the home secretary. But Mr Clarke relented yesterday to seal a workable deal - those applying for passports could opt out of having an ID card, thus making them voluntary.

It is a small victory and it has delayed compulsory introduction by an estimated 2 years, but the wider issues surrounding ID cards still lurk - the workability of the IT systems required, the fact that senior security figures believe that ID cards will not significantly reduce crime or terrorism, the insiduous further erosion of our civil liberties, the possibility of hacking and widescale identity theft.

ID cards are a gross anomoly in a country that once used to be a bastion of liberty and civil freedoms, stretching back to 1215 and they fundamentally alter our relationship with the state. I was under a crazy impression that in a liberal democracy, the people are the masters and the politicans are merely the representatives of our wishes, but the trend has been reversing for many many decades. This authoritarian legislation is a further nail in the coffin and is helping to turn the ruling oligarchy of ministers into the masters and we the people into the slaves.

ID cards will still need a further act of Parliament in 2010 to introduce them and make them compulsory and this will be after the next election, so in the intervening time, we must all make the most of this last gasp of freedom and campaign hard against compulsory ID cards. Perhaps the next government, whoever forms it, will listen if there is sufficient popular discontent.

Demosthenes

Authoritarian Britain - the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

2006-03-27T13:44:00.000Z

With a tedious title and precious little public debate (even in the broadsheets), the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is currently passing through Parliament with quiet, assured ease. Most people have never heard of it, most people probably do not care, but this bill contains a deeply disturbing premise, which if passed through Parliament, will form enacted law. This bill, once law, will in effect allow a minister of the Crown to repeal, amend and even pass new primary and secondary legislation, without the obligation of full Parliamentary debate and discussion or a vote of approval. As I have previously written in these columns, there has been, over the last few decades, a continued and worrying decrease in the powers of Parliament and its ability to properly scrutinise legislation and this bill will further emasculate a weak, party-orientated, whip-fearful Commons.

Whilst the government argues that the bill is only being introduced so as to enable ministers to quickly and efficientlty remove a great bulk opf unnecessary legilsation that sits on our law books despite being outdated, obsolete or never even operationally enforced, the scope of the powers encapsulated in the bill should concern every citizen of this country. Despite verbal assurances from ministers that the bill will not be abused, the specific language of the bill does nothing to assuage the genuine and understandable fears of the bill's critics and does virtually nothing to limit the ability of ministers in respect of exercising the powers contained therein.

But this bill is simply symptomatic of the malaise surrounding the 'constitution' and the electoral system in the UK. The first-past-the-post system gives us an unfair and disproportionate elected Commons, the power of the whips is far too strong as MPs think of their careers instead of serving their constutuents, the executive is too unwieldy and powerful leading almost to an elected oligarchy, the Royal Prerogative allows the incumbent government to circumscribe Parliamentary debate and approval, the second house (though staunchly defending our rights on ID cards - hopw perversely paradoxical!) is unelected and full of accidents of birth and political, unaccountable appointees and all the while the people grow less powerful, less enfranchised and less interested. There is apathy about our rights being destroyed, but the British are not, I believe, naturally apathic towards politics or political issues (witness Make Poverty History, the anti-war coalition and many environmental campaigns), but we need a way to coalesce and galvernise the people over issues like the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill and ID cards, which - at first sight to most people - are not as intrinsically interesting, immediate or "in your face" as fighting African poverty or fighting an illegal war, but are of equal importance to all of us. I am none the wiser as to how a national campaign to combat the erosion of our rights and democracy can be successfully waged, but we have to do something soon before Britain becomes Airstrip One. That would be Double Plus Bad.

© Demosthenes

Israel and Racism

2006-03-24T14:21:00.000Z

Yesterday, a well respected and reputable Israel educational organisation, Geocartographia, published the results of a recent poll about racism in Israel. The results are little short of shocking. Here are some of the findings:

Over 67% of Israelis would refuse to live in the same building as an Arab;
Just under 50% of Israelis would not allow an Arab into their home;
40% of Israelis support efforts to "emigrate" Arab citizens out of Israeli - i.e. kick them out of their homes to who knows where;
18% of Israelis admitted to feeling hatred when they heard Arabic spoken; and
34% of Israelis believe that Israeli culture is superior to Arab culture.

I personally find this staggering. For a country that was founded on the concept that Jews should no longer be counted as the pariahs of the world, that they no longer be subjected to racial hatred, violence, pogroms and murders (from the German riots of the 1090's to the gates of Auschwitz), this poll strikes me as deeply disturbing. Just as the serial killer, Fred West, was abused-turned-abuser, so it seems that there are a significant number of Israelis who preach and feel the same kind of racial animosity that the Jews themselves have been subjected to down the centuries. You would think that if there were one race or people that would most clearly understand and empathise with the plight of continually being the abused, the undervalued, the hated, it would be the Jews, but modern Israel belies this fact.

When will these vocal racist elements in Israeli society be pushed into the shadows where they belong? The Arab-Israelis already suffer enough with being treated like second-class citizens in their own country - the government spends far less on education, healthcare and development for its Arab citizens than it does on its Jewish citizens and there is active, barely concealed racism in the work place that all buit excludes Arabs from good, responsible jobs, especially those in the civil servicve and in government. And this is how the Israeli government treats its own citizens (who just happen to be Arab). There will be no peace in the region, no self-determining state for the Palestinians and no end to the violence unless there is a seismic change in attitude in Israel towards the Arab peoples and the Arab race. As it is, the wall in the West Bank grows apace, settlements grow, the Israeli government continues to shut important trading gateways into Palestine so even bread is rationed and the end is nowhere nearer in sight.

Lords defeat ID cards for fourth time

2006-03-23T17:00:00.000Z

Two days ago, the Lords again defeated the government on its proposal to make ID cards compulsory for anyone wishing to renew their passport. The majority was 36 on this reading. If the Lords don't blink in this game of ping-pong, the government will have to invoke the Parliament Act to force this unpopular, illiberal legislation through and that will be a sign of weakness.

The Last Dictator in Europe

2006-03-22T14:26:00.000Z

Alexander Lukashenko (pictured left next to men in large hats) recently won the presidential election in Belarus with over 80% of the vote, amidst protestations from the US and the EU that the election process was neither fair nor democratic. Opposition parties have been threatened, people have been imprisoned, the free press has largely been gagged and there are allegations of vote-counting corruption. There is precious little doubt that Lukashenko is a totalitarian leader of the old Soviet school, who does not blink in using violence, intimidation and the suppression of what we in the west would consider basic freedoms in order to retain power and there is equally little surprise that a growing movement for reform is developing in Belarus (with financial and moral assistance from the US and the EU).

But this is not the whole picture. Whilst Condoleeza Rice called Belarus "the last outpost of tyranny" and whilst others have labelled Lukashenko "the last dictator in Europe", there is no denying the sure-footedness and success of Lukashenko's governance. In the last 12 months, real wages in Belarus have increased by 24% and in the last seven years in power, Lukashenko has cut VAT, reduced inflation, halved the number of people living in poverty and developed a tax system which fairly distributes income across the entire population, thus mitigating social tensions and serving the poorest and most vulnerable well.

And this is entirely the problem for the US and the EU. Lukashenko runs an authoritarian regime that spits on human rights, democracy and freedom of speech and for this he must be rightly condemned, but his largely state-run, nationalised economy is, at least for now, a success, much to the detriment - of course - of European and US business interests that would dearly love to move into and exploit yet another profitable new Eastern European market. Just as other former Soviet controlled countries are now swamped with foreign corporations profiting on the death of communism, so some would like to see Belarus go the same way.

I am not advocating that Lukashenko remain in power and continue with his current barbaric practices; I would much rather he conducted full and fair democratic elections ( someting tells me that he would probably still win) and governed his country in a humane, liberal and free manner. If he believes that his communist, state-centric policies are correct, so be it, let him implement them, but it somewhat grates on our intelligence when we are told by the US and our own governments in Europe that Lukashenko is an abomination, a dictator, a crusher of civil liberties and basic human rights who must be swept from power, when the self-same administrations still actively support other dictatorial, non-democratic and, arguably, far more brutal regimes such as Saudi Arabia. The only difference, of course, is that the ruling Saudi family will 'play ball' with the west, in particular, the US, but Lukashenko will not.

© Demosthenes

Britishness For All

2006-03-21T13:24:00.000Z

What is Britishness? Gordon Brown, in a speech a few weeks ago, evoked a desire that we Britons should become more proud, more knowledgable and more aware of our Britishness. He stated that he wanted us to reclaim the Union flag from the right wing, from the neo-Nazis and to make it our own again, a resplendent symbol of our nation, and to see it fluttering in front gardens and on residential rooves, as you might readily find the Stars and Stripes displayed in many American homes. He challenged all Britons to assume our responsibilities and to play an active role in the resurgance of a British national feeling that would cut across ecomonic, social, racial and religious divides. The need for a new-found national pride seems to me to be twofold. Firstly, it fits neatly with Labour's political creed that we are citizens and, as citizens, we responsibilities as well as rights - many political philosophers such as Aristotle, Cicero, Rousseau and Machiavelli have demanded that citizens work for the state's greater good and not just themselves and their individual demand and complaints - and, as such, a heightened awareness of, and pride in, our nation state should induce us to take our responsibilities more seriously; and, secondly, in light of the increase in terrorism and the 7 July bombings committed by British citizens, a policy of inclusive Britishness may help to shape a nation where, in spite of diversity of ethnicity, religious creed, race and political thought amongst the citizenry, we would all agree on one thing - that we are British, we are all citizens together and, ultimately, we are all striving to make this nation a better, safer, happier place to live (shame we can't change the weather).

If his rationale is the same as mine, then I agree with Gordon Brown, but, before I examine the practicalities of exactly how we go about instilling this new sense of Britishness, we should be aware of the potential pitfalls. The primary problem is simple: we must avoid the advocating of Britishness at the expense of xenophobia and racism. Sadly, patriotism can easily overspill into, first, jingoism and then downright prejudice, paranoia and hatred. This has to be avoided at all costs and, so, we must advance of the cause of British pride cautiously and with restraint.

The starting point is education. I hear, and have heard, too many people tell me just how much they love their country, but be unable to name half a dozen members of the cabinet or any of Britain's most famous monarchs. It's a basic issue - we must teach British history to all school children from (at least) the age of 11 to 16 and make it compulsory. Everyone in the UK should have at least a rudimentary knowledge and understanding of our history and, in particular, the key events, but whilst history should be partially about battles, dates, kings, queens and important events, it should also be about what it means to be British. We are a wary, xenophobic lot in the UK, so let's start teaching the children just what constitutes Britishness, because, as far as I can see, we are a mongrel race made up of Celts, Vikings, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Norman French, Flemish, Hugenot French, sub-continental Indian, Pakistani and Sri Lankan and Caribbean. Let's teach everyone that it is estimated that 75% of white Britons have French Hugenot blood in them from when tens of thousands fled France in the 17th century and made their homes in Britain, mainly in London. Perhaps, if more people knew this, less people would regard Europe as such a vile, hateful place.

We should also teach our children about the fundamentals of how the British state is run and what our rights are as citizens. In the US, teaching the Constitution and how government operates and functions is compulsory, so why not here as well? If we could give children a basic grounding in the constitutional make-up of the country and its government, including such important topics as human rights, equal opportunity legislation and the EU, they would be far better equipped going forward in life. It may also help them to grow interested in the political life of the country at an early stage and this may, in turn, help to reverse the recent trend of the young shying away from traditional politics, even though it affects every part of lives these days. Perhaps such a class could be incorporated into the current citizenship classes at schools.

We also need to teach our children about Britain in the 20th century after World War II. Most school history syllbuses seem to end with 1945 and, not so coincidentally, the decline of Britain as a major power, but the post-War period needs to be taught and understood. Let's learn about the break up of the Empire, the mass immigration of Indians and Caribbeans, the closer intergration with Europe, culminating in joining what was the EEC. These topics are vital to understand from a historic standpoint, but they are perfect topics to educate children that being British in the 21st century means that your skin colour may be something other than white, that your religion (if any) may be something other than Christianity and that being British also means being European.

But along with the good comes the bad. Whilst we should, of course, teach the great achievements of Britain - Magna Carta, modern representative democracy, the abolition of slavery, the agricultural and industrial revolutions, the welfare state, the NHS - we must also teach those parts of our history that are less savoury - the Irish potato famine of the 1840s, the colonial abuses, the Iraq war. We can be patriotic without being jingoistic. We can take pride in our nation's achievements without forgetting our excesses, mistakes and abuses. In this way, we could perhaps help to temper any inclination towards Britishness leading inevitably towards xenophobia. A true patriot will see, acknowledge and then try to change the problems of his country, but to do this we must be aware of them first.

I should hope that if history were taught in this way, it would help to foster a new generation of children of all races growing up in Britain who would see themselves as primarily British. But education, whilst the foundation, is not the only way to encourage a deepening of our pride for our country. In sport, we have many competitors whose families originate from outside of Britain - Monty Panesar is the first sikh to represent England at cricket, Colin Jackson, a black man, ran the 110m hurdles for Wales and Britain for many years and many players of Caribbean or African descent have played for our national football teams. In culture, Britain has many fine writers, musicians, actors, artists and directors of all races, religions and colours. Let us encourage them and ask each other to admire and emulate these people regardless of their background or ancestry because, now, they are all British.

I don't ever see Gordon Brown's vision of Union Jacks fluttering in front gardens in Britain, because we just don't do things like that (another vital aspect to being British, I would own), but I could see or, at least, I hope that we could see a Britain populated by all manner of people from all manner of backgrounds and ancestries all living in the same country, knowledgeable of their collective history, proud of their nation, but ready and willing to address its problems and not inclined to xenophobia. It's a long way off, but worth fighting for now.

© Demosthenes

The Walls of Jericho

2006-03-17T15:56:00.000Z

The recent siege and subsequent storming of a Palestinian Authority prison in Jericho has gravely damaged Britain's reputation in Palestine and the wider middle eastern region. Previously, Britain had - to a certain degree - been seen as an "honest broker" in a notoriously difficult political arena and it was Britain which helped to broker the initial deal 4 years ago to incarcerate the alleged murderes of Israel's tourism minister, Rehavam Ze'evi, in a PA prison, whilst monitoring them with UK and US officials. It was a triumph for Britain's foreign office and potentially opened avenues for further brokering and further involvement in the peace process.

Since 2001, however, Britain has pinned its foreign policy too close to that of George Bush's United States, leading ultimately to the illegal and disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq and the fruitless 'War on Terror.' Despite a downgrading in standing, reputation and independence as a result, Britain has still maintained some influence in Palestine. With the withdrawal of the UK monitors from the prison, despite a clear prior indication from Israel that any such withdrawal would result in a near immediate attack by Israeli defence forces on the prison, our waning influence may finally be about to evaporate as the UK government propels us further into an Americanisation of our foreign policy in the region.

The US has long been a close ally of Israel. It funds Israel with billions of US tax payers' money every year, it supplies many of Israel's military hardware and weapons systems and it even assisted Israel in its illegal and brutal occupation of Southern Lebanon in 1982. Maybe successive US administrations have been consistently pro-Israel as the Jewish vote in the United States is a large and valuable one, which no President, Congressman or Senator can ignore, but the same cannot be said of Britain. Why Britain effectively colluded in an unwarranted act of aggression by Israel in breach of the terms of the deal it had agreed to in 2001 is beyond me and many others.

We have already aligned ourselves too closely to the US in many areas, but this is another step too far. The Israel-Palestine conflict requires honest, fair brokering to achieve peace and Britain was a country ideally placed to take a leading role, rather than siding with the right-wing aggressors and bullies. The US, despite best efforts from Bill Clinton, simply has too much political capital to lose at home in the ballot box for it to make or help others to make hard decisions precisely because those hard decisions revolve around Israel accepting that they illegally occupy land in the West Bank and elsewhere, that they operate a form of state-sponsored terrorism against the Palestinians, that they are engaging in an ever more rapid illegal land grab, that they are guilty of a multitude of human rights abuses against the Palestinians and that they are denying the Palestinians a self-determining nation of their own (depsite the fact that Zionists campaigned and used terrorism to secure their own nation 60 years ago on the self-same basis). Britain may have been able to play a role in healing the rift and helping the Palestinians form their own state, as it their fundamental right, but now that role, like the British Council in Gaza, lies a smouldering ruin.

© Demosthenes

Lords defeat ID cards for third time

2006-03-16T11:55:00.000Z

I note that last night the Lords have, for the third time, defeated the government's proposal that people who apply for new passports must also apply for an identity card. It may not be often that we hear this, but the Lords are doing wonderfully well. When the government is eroding our civil liberties, the peers are defending them. Long may it continue. The Lords' actions have already delayed the timetable for ID card introduction and, hopefully, with more opposition will delay it yet further. For more information about the campaign against compulsory ID cards, please visit the website of the civil liberties group, Liberty (see link on the right hand side of this page).

© Demosthenes

In It For The Money - party funding

2006-03-16T10:34:00.000Z

It's not been a good time for the government in recent weeks. There have been defeats on ID cards, rebellions on the Edcuation Bill, the Tessa Jowell debacle and now, to cap it all, a cash-for-honours row. This week, it has transpired that three wealthy entrepreneurs (a property magante, a stockbroker and a well-being guru) had collectively loaned around £3.5 million to the Labour party before the 2005 general election . As if by magic, all three have subsequently been put forward by Downing Street to be created life peers.

Handing out privileges and peerages in return for party political favours is clearly unacceptable and makes a mockery of honours which should be accorded to the genuinely worthy, but the crux of the current controversy is how political parties are funded in the UK. Although there is sufficient transparency in the area of donations to parties, which must be declared, loans (at commercial rates) do not have to be made public. The rumours are that Labour only exploited this avenue after fearing that the Conservatives had amassed as much as £25 million in undeclared loans. Whether this is correct or not, it creates enormous concern for us. I do not appreciate my government being indebted, financially and perhaps morally, to unelected, unaccountable businessmen, whose only interest, surely, is themselves and their bank balances. Receiving undeserved honours for cash is the tip of the iceberg and is, ultimately, harmless if disreputable. What happens if the lender exercises their financial muscle in other, more nefarious ways that may affect public policy or the government's decisions?

Labour's immediate problem with funding is the very fact that they are the party in government. As such, they receive no state funding, whereas the Lib Dems and the Conservatives do. No doubt this has created this unseemly rush to canvass money from anywhere they can obtain it. In a way, I have some sympathy with Labour as the party requires funds to fight elections and it perhaps does not have the immediate advantages in this respect that the Conservatives traditionally have and certainly receive no public money, but this whole episode has left a bad taste in the mouth.

Although regulations governing party funding have been tightened and become more transparent under the current government, there are still glaring problems, as the latest story has demonstrated. What we need is further reform, the primary aim of which must be to severely limit the influence that unelected donors may have on any particular party (including especially that in government), whilst maintaining a level playing field for all parties with regard to their finances. The Power Commission, which recently published its report, reviewed party funding as part of its remit on investigating constitutional change and recommended that donations from individuals to parties should be capped at £10,000 and that organisational donations should be capped at £100 per member, provided that such organisations have approached the donation with a full democratic process and scrutiny. The commission also recommended that for every vote for a party at a general election would result in the state donating £3 per year to that party. These are sensible suggestions, although I would be inclined to re-visit the £100 per member cap as this is specifically aimed, I would guess, at the unions and with some unions having memberships running to tens of thousands, £100 per member going , almost invariably, to Labour may create am imbalance in the funding.

Added to the above, I believe that loans to political parties should be outlawed unless they come from a financial institution whose business is customarily loaning money. In effect, this would drastically reduce, if not eradicate, any loans being made as few banks would lend to political parties that have no income stream with which to guarantee repayment of principal plus interest. I believe also that the party in government should receive state funding, not just the opposition, and that all parties should have equal and free access to make party political broadcasts on television and on other modern media, such as the internet and satelitte broadcasting. I believe that an independent watchdog should be established to monitor, regulate and, where applicable, investigate party funding, such powers stretching to holding committee investigations to which any person may be summoned to answer questions.

I am sure there are plenty of other clever ideas out there to reform political funding, but it is something that must be acted upon soon. The latest revelations show that funding is not just about creating equality and fairness amongst the parties, it is also about ensuring that elected officials are not beholden to the unelected donors, that policy and decision-making is made always in the best interests of the nation and not individuals or special interest groups, who just so happen to have placed funds into a particular party. It goes to the heart of our democracy.

© Demosthenes

Supermarket Sweep

2006-03-13T11:07:00.000Z

Last week, the Office of Fair Trading (or, OFT) announced that it would instigate a full competition enquiry into the dominance of certain supermarkets in the UK grocery shopping market. Although grocery prices have, in real terms reduced by 7.3% in the last few years, there are still significant concerns about anti-competative behaviour. For example, there are cases of so-called "price flexing" where supermarkets increase prices on various products in areas where competition from other retailers in weaker; there are cases where supermarkets sell below cost in order to drive local independent retailers out of business; and there are cases where supermarkets buy up huge swathes of land, simply to prevent competitors from acquiring it.

Most people would content that lower prices in our supermakrets is, generally, a good thing, so why investigate an industry that is currently benefitting consumers? Lower prices we do have, but at what cost?

In the last 5 years, an estimated 5% of independent shop keepers have been forced out of business. Many thousands more have been pushed so hard to the financial wall that they struggle to make ends meet. An independent shopkeeper's association has predicted that within as little as 10 years, the corner shop, the independent supermarket and the local fruit and veg store will be a thing of the past. Perhaps it is exaggeration that every independent grocery shop will be driven into the oblivion, but thousands almost certainly will, unless the OFT acts soon. I can't tell anyone where to shop and what to spend (and, of course, the lower prices in supermarkets significantly help the most deprived in our society), but I have no problem with trying to spend my money locally (even if the price is a little higher), instead of forcing cash into the hands of the Tesco dynasty or the Sainsbury family.

We too often let the consumer market dominate our lives, where price cuts are greeted universally as a "good thing", but the real cost is ruining the lives of thousands of independent retailers, dangerouly concentrating financial (and increasingly poilitical) power into the hands of fewer and fewer CEOs and has reinvigorated the type of economic exploitation that we thought we had rid this country of many decades ago. Unscrupulous gangmasters ship in tens of thousands of immigrant workers every spring and summer to these shores in order to put them to work in the agriculture industry. The workers are willing, to be sure, but their pay is frequently below the minimum wage, they are forced to live in appalling conditions in static caravans or leaking barns and the work is back breaking and they lack basic employment rights (despite the fact that many are now EU citizens). And why? Because the supermarkets drive their margins so low that the farmers and producers have to cut costs to dizzying depths just to make ends meet. And why do the supermarkets do this? Because, apparently, this is what we, the consumers, want.

There is also a cultural argument to preventing the spread of the major supermakrets, particularly in the resurgance of their "convenience" stores which are eating up local corner shops and grocery stores. Just one example - when I used to live in Hampstead, there was a fantastic independent store, which used to sell unusual and different food stuffs as well as the essentials like bread, milk, newspapers and so on. I used to enjoy shopping there for the little things that did not require the use of the car. Sadly, though, it went the way of many shops across the country when it was bought out by Tesco and replaced by a "convenience" store, stocking only the same old bland Tesco items and doing away with the unusual, the different or the obscure. Is this what we want? Every high street or parade of shops in the country to be a string of multi-national concerns packaged into what the PR men will proffer is a fuzzy, local setting? Certainly, I don't.

At the moment, I cannot imagine that there is much stomach in the counrty to take on the big supermarkets, as prices are continuing to decrease and this generally keeps people happy, but there may well come a time, when competition is so degraded by the big four - Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda and Morrisons - that instead of prices being slashed, we will see prices rising again. Again, if I can use another example from my personal experience. When I was a child, the buses were deregulated in the UK. It led in my home town to two rival bus operaters. For a few years, it was a wonderful time to be a bus user as the rivals fought tooth and nail to undercut each other's prices. Bus travel was incredibly cheap. Until the day when one was eventually driven into insolvency. Within a few months, bus fares more than doubled.

© Demosthenes

Points Make Prizes

2006-03-09T14:37:00.000Z

Earlier this week, Charles Clarke (pictured left) announced widespread reforms to immigration laws in the UK. Over the next two years, the government will phase in a points-based system of selection for non-EU economic immigrants, which is similar to the system operated by Australia for a number of years. Applicants will be obliged to acquire a certain amount of points, awarded according to various criteria, including education, skills and previous earning power, before they can be admitted to the UK to work or seek jobs. Although the most highly trained or entreprenurial will find meeting the new measures relatively straightforward, particularly if there is a labour shortage in their areas of expertise, it is the low-skilled that will have most difficulty in entering the UK. The jobs available to the low-skilled, such as hospitality, construction and agriculture, will be strictly quota-based and led by individual companies that require short-term labour.

With the broadening of the EU to include the Baltic States and a number of East European nations, it is thought amongst government that most low-skill jobs can be and will be placed to immigrants from the new EU member states, thus removing much of the need to seek economic migrants from non-EU countries. This is correct. We have expanded the EU to welcome new nations and we should give priority to citizens of those nations in the UK job market, as we are now all partners in Europe together and we will stand and fall as a group. Since enlargement, Britain has already seen up to 750,000 full time or temporary economic migrants arrive from the new EU members and the effect on our economy has been extremely beneficial. The vast majority of our new neighbours have (contrary to the usual xenophobic scare-stories spread by the tabloids) come to Britain and obtained jobs. They are paying tax and spending their money in the consumer market. They have helped to boost the economy and some experts opine that the new influx also helped to reduce indigenous unemployment by the extra wealth and job creation.

The new points system strikes me as being eminently sensible. Although economic immigration has always been a valuable part of the growth (financial and cultural) of this country from the Lombard bankers in London and the Dutch wool workers in East Anglia of the middles ages to the French Hugenot artisans of the 17th century to the West Indians, Indians and Pakistanis of the middle of the last century, we must now learn to set limitations on non-EU migrants. The EU has been broadened significantly and will continue to broaden with Bulgaria, Serbia and Turkey mooted as possible new EU members. If certain industries in the UK require labour, we should give priority to our EU neighbours. To the extent that there still remain labour shortages, then we should allow others into the UK if they meet the correct criteria and, in particular, we should not accept people who cannot contribute actively to our country financially.

My one concern is Charles Clarke's statement that he wants to "attract the brightest and the best" from the developing world to our shores. This appears to tip the emphasis away from the common-sense approach of limiting economic migration except where there are labour requirements amongst the high and low skilled (or where a migrant would be seen as a "wealth-creator) towards a programme where the UK wishes to almost advertise its potential to the most highly trained, highly educated and most valuable citizens of other nations. It's a bit like poaching, except here, we would be poaching those most needed by the native countries.

Mandates, Manifestos, Manacles

2006-03-07T14:20:00.000Z

Yesterday, the House of Lords defeated the government again on identity cards. The upper house voted against the compulsory introduction of identity cards by stealth, opposing the government's proposal that, from 2008, applicants for passports will also be obliged by law to apply for a biometric identity card.

I am not going to trawl back in detail over the arguments for and against compulosry ID cards, suffice to say that I am opposed to their obligatory roll-out. Former MI5 bosses and senior police officials state that ID cards will not seriously reduce, or reduce the threat of, crime or terrorism; ID cards will not seriously reduce benefit fraud since social service statistics show that well over 90% of all fraud is based on deception over circumstances, not identity; computer industry experts have expressed major concerns over the capability to deliver the information technological solutions required for such an enormous scheme, unparallelled in the world, and also over the ability to maintain sufficient security for the national database; and, finally, and most importantly, ID cards are a grotesque invasion on our freedom and civil liberties, plastic cards designed to justify our existence in our own country.

Sadly, however, it appears that the government will force through the legislation and another section will be chipped away from the ever-dwindling block of our liberties. The Lords are striving valiantly, but if the Commons continue to vote in favour of the bill, it will inevitably become law.

But what has stoked the ire of the government on the occasion of yet another defeat is the perceived breach of the unwritten Parliamentary convention that, if a manifesto commitment is passed through the Commons, the opposition peers in the Lords should not seek to defeat the bill on a second reading or to table amendments designed to wreck the proposed legislation (although doing so on a first reading appears to be acceptable). The government cried foul and cited that ID cards had been a clear manifesto commitment prior to the 2005 general election. A closer inspection of Labour's 2005 manifesto actually reveals the following: "We will introduce ID cards....initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports." If you doubt my reading, please follow the link to the right to the Labour Party's website where you can download a copy of the manifesto for your own perusal. The language is clear that ID cards were only ever intended to be voluntary (at least to start with).

But this semantic argument merely masks a deeper problem. The government's case is that it has the popular mandate (based on a mere 61.3% turnout in 2005) to drive this unpopular bill through and any deviation from passing this bill into law would be a betrayal of the electorate. Indeed, Lord Gould, the Labour peer and close ally to Mr. Blair, stated yesterday: "The will of the people and the elected parliament should prevail." This opens up a thorny issue for me (and, I have no doubt, many others besides). Whilst it is possible to agree with the majority, even a large majority, of a party's manifesto, it is equally possible to disagree vehemently with certain other manifesto pledges. ID cards provide an excellent example. Much of Labour's last manifesto makes good reading, but this proposal is completely unacceptable to me. Where am I left on this matter? Do I not vote Labour, despite agreeing with most of their other policies? In abstaining to vote for Labour, I would, in my own small way, be aiding the Conservatives in their quest to win and form the next government (a prospect to which I am averse).

It is, ultimately, a basic problem with modern representative democracies and something we have to accept as part of the process, but on matters as fundamental as personal freedom, civil liberty and the right of the individual to go about their business as they see fit (matters and rights which ID card legislation would curtail and damage), surely we must have further protection. Short of widespread constitutional and electoral reform (although take note that if we elected MPs by PR, this travesty of a bill would never even get to Parliament, let alone threaten to become enacted), perhaps the answer is follow the US route on law-making. Although British citizens have the right to invoke the Human Rights Act and I have little doubt that actions will be brought when ID cards are rolled out, it still remains the individual's responsibility (and will be to their cost) to bring actions of judicial review for breaches of the Act in relation to ID cards and it will still, of course, remain subject to legal ruling in the courts. Surely, it would better to follow the Amercian model, whereby no law may be passed that breaches the Constitution. In that way, the primary onus is on the government to take responsibility for ensuring that all of its laws comply with the broad principles of the Constitution, including civil rights and personal liberty, as opposed to foisting it upon the citizens. Following the US model slavishly would, of course, mean putting in place a written constitution of our own first and changing the traditional convention that no law (including a constitution) may be entrenched in Parliament as Parliament is the sole sovereign body in the nation and may make and unmake laws as it sees fit. This is not a quick fix in itself, but - in order to preserve our freedoms in the future - I believe that we should begin the process of campaigning for a written, entrenched constitution now, before it is too late. That said, it would still be possible to put in place an abridged form of constitution to cover any long interim period before a full constitution were adopted. Clearly, the government is happy with the terms of the Human Rights Act as it drafted and passed it and, again I would presume, that this Act would form the corner stone of any written constitution, so why not pass legislation now that will use the basic tenets of the Human Rights Act to ensure that no further laws may be passed which would breach the Act. Clearly, exceptions would be required and the drafting would have to be careful, but as a principle it would be a clear indication to the people that the government regards our rights and freedoms as paramount and surely this is how it should be. David Miliband has recently stated that the great political debate of the 2000's will be bringing greater power to the people at local, devolved level. He may be right, but surely a bigger debate (even battle) will be that of the rights of the individual citizen against the state.

© Demosthenes

The Politics of Consensus

2006-03-07T09:32:00.000Z

I have been considering again my favour for a form of proportional representation (or, PR) as set out in an earlier article (please see http://ukpoliticalissues.blogspot.com/2006/03/constitutional-reform-boring-or-what.html). What made me ponder the concept again was re-reading sections of Machiavelli's Discourses and Aristotle's Politics over the weekend.

Machiavelli wrote that the best laws come from discord. A city state should never give too much power to any of the nobility, the merchant class, the middle class professionals or the people. The best laws would be tailored so that, whilst one statute would favour - for argument's sake - the rich few, the next would favour the poor majority, thus ensuring that no one grouping, based on birth, wealth, occupation or otherwise would accumulate an undue amount of power to itself. In the political and military hotbed of 16th century Italian and Florentine politics, Machiavelli and his adherents would have advocated such principles as the threat of coups and the ensuing potential for violence and retribution was very real. The reformed Florentine republic, under which Machivelli himself served, only lasted from 1494 until 1512 when the Medicis returned to ducal, absolute power.

Aristotle wrote that the best consitutions, which govern the relationship of citizens to their state, were ones which combined an element of each of what the Greeks considered natural constitutions - in other words, monarchy, aristocracy (literally meaning, "rule of the best") and polity (democracy in our modern sense). By combining all three forms of government, Aristotle assumed that there would be a sufficient separation of powers to ensure - like Machivelli - that no one loose political grouping would grow too powerful and that all groupings would, therefore, work for the common good of all, rich or poor, young or old, men of good birth or not. If they did not maintain such a separation, if groups were permitted to grow too powerful, monarchy would slip into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy and polity into democracy, where each party would only do those things and pass those laws which favoured their own parties and not the entire citizen body. This would not be acceptable.

Whilst Machiavelli's aim (I would opine) is more concerned with stability of society, compared with Aristotle's more natural inclination towards a constitution that favours public, common benefits for all, the outcome of their political philosophies is an attractive one - power and influence is balanced so that all citizens prosper. Maybe one grouping will not prosper as much as they might under a more favourable, partisan regime, but - then again - neither will any one grouping be severely prejudiced by such a regime. Our own political and electoral system, however, is geared towards dominance of one party, albeit for the limited duration of a maximum 5 year period. To use slightly outmoded, but - for the present purposes helpful - examples, the Labour Party is traditionally the party that favours the working class, the poor, the deprived, the socially excluded (often to the detriment of the rich, the privileged, the middle class - although a socialist would argue that such groups will never be that seriously prejudiced because of their wealth, education and privilege), whilst the Conservative Party is traditionally the party that favours the rich, the privileged, the middle class (often to the detriment of the working class, the poor, the deprived, the socially excluded). The dichotomy between the two major parties' ideologies has been the main driving force behind political debate and change in Britain since the 1940's and was particularly stark in the 1980's under the government of Margaret Thatcher. Whilst a large minority prospered greatly under Thatcher's free-market political ideology, many more were hurt and look back at that period as one of social upheaval, discontent, deprivation and the triumph of the well-off over the poor.

If the UK were to govern its elections with a form of PR, never again would this country face such a confrontational form of politics that would deeply divide society to the detriment of the nation as a whole. Never again would political dogma and ideology threaten to tear down the fabric of our constitution, favouring some groups, whilst crippling others within the citizen body. Similarly, never again would the wealthy and the wealth-creators face excessive prejudice from a government that would force them to do business in more accomodating countries or regions and thus damage the national economy and, ultimately, the jobs of many hard-working people.

The argument against PR in Britain used to be that coalition governments are weak and factional and fall apart as quickly as they are made. Critics would tiredly point to nations where there have been more governments since World War II than I have had hot dinners, but the days of this argument appear to be over (at least for now). The party politics of Britain grow closer and closer every day. David Cameron's Conservatives are already shifting left with their renewed interest in social justice, protection for the needy and strong public services. Gordon Brown is shaping himself for the Prime Minister's job, signalling his intent and suitability with observations on matters more readily associated with the centre-right, such as ID cards, "Britishness" and the war of terror. Even the Lib Dems seem to want to get in on the act with a new policy to partly privatise the Royal Mail and indicating that they may drop their proposed 50% tax rate on the highest tax band. With the parties so close in this day and age, would coalition governments be such a bad thing? Would they be so weak? Would they be so difficult to control and manage? I, for one, do not think so.

PR would almost always ensure that every government would be a coalition of at least two (and maybe more) parties. For every instinct of a traditional Labour government to tax the rich and potentially stifle enterprise, aspiration and business, there would be other members of the coalition to rein in such thinking. For every instinct of a traditional Conservative government to favour the rich, ignore social justice and let the poor and needy go to waste, there would be other members of the coalition to prevent this from happening. If the Lib Dems were integrated into coaltion governments, we know that we would always have a party that would fight for our individual freedoms and civil liberties to the bitter end - we would not, for example, suffer the indignity and outrage of the proposed ID card scheme, currently mooted by the government.

Government would operate by consensus, Parliament would be more powerful and we would be the beneficiaries with a series of governments interested only in what is best for the country as a whole, rather than partizan politics and subsequent laws that should be (in theory at least) balanced, sensible and for the common benefit of the country and its inhabitants.

I argue for PR and cite practical examples above that should benefit the country, but the most fundamental argument in favour of PR is a simple one, but one I have yet to address - it is more fair and it will more accurately reflect the will of the people than our current first-past-the-post system and it will give a political, national voice to those parties that collect sufficient votes from the electorate. Democracy is not about the rule of the many for the many alone; it is also, and perhaps more pertinently, a system whose greatest beneficiaries are those who are in the minority. PR would give voice to such minorities, without sacrificing the will of the people to vote into power the majority party (or parties). Perhaps this is idealistic, perhaps this is naive, but in a day and age when we advocate and promote democracy around the globe, partly out of principle, and partly down to the theory that democracy, in the long term, should stifle terrorism and make the world a safer, fairer, more tolerant place, perhaps this country should signal its intention to the world by adopting a fairer, more democratic system of government.

© Demosthenes

Battle for the Planet- climate chaos

2006-03-03T11:34:00.000Z

"The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge, but all economies know that the only sensible long term way of developing is to do it on a sustainable basis." - Tony Blair, 2005

"The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that countries are not doing enough to adapt their economies so that they reduce their greenhouse gas emissions." - Lord May, President of the Royal Society, 2005

Yesterday, on a day when a US University team estimated that the Antarctic ice sheet is losing 36 cubic miles of ice per year to global warming, the government in the UK rejected a proposal to build a wind farm to the east of the Lake District. The planned wind farm (at Whinash), a £55 million project, was to consist of 27 wind turbines, each standing just over 100 metres high, and would have generated enough electricity to power 46,000 homes. The result is a victory for parochialism and nimby-ism and leaves a serious question mark over the government's commitment to sustainable energy growth. Yes, wind turbines are not the most attractive structures, but - as a person who loves the Lake District and loves the hiking and fell walking there - I would still place wind farms in the vicinity, provided they do not encroach upon the national park. The Whinash farm would have been set beyond the park's boundaries. For a region where the locals have grown used to the Sellafield nuclear power plant and to finding genetically mutated fish in the waters just off the coast, it seems strange that an eye-sore is regarded as more offensive than the risk of nuclear exposure or the cancers that some claim living close to a nuclear power station cause.

When Mr. Blair advocated the Kyoto Protocol and set Britain the challenge of reducing its carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2012, there was a collective cheer from many campaigners and ordinary folk who genuinely believe that tackling climate change is now the greatest challenge of the 21st century. It seemed that, finally, we had a leader who recognised the all too apparent danger of allowing global warming to spiral out of control. It is now 5 years since Britain first supported the Kyoto Protocol and there is a great deal of work to do to meet the targets set for 2012. In the last two years, carbon emissions in the UK have actually increased, leaving the government to cut emissions by a further 12.5% by 2012. It is the received position that we, as a nation, will struggle to meet such a stringent target in a relative short space of time.

And struggle we will when the government whistles a green tune, but simultaneously prevents a wind farm from being created and states that it will not levy tax on aviation fuel, despite the fact that aviation is the fastest growing producer of greenhouse gas in the world. In fact, not only will the government not tax the polluting aviation industry, but it is actively encouraging the growth of further development of airports in the UK. The government estimates that by 2030, the number of people flying through Britain (including stop-overs from the US and around the world) will double to a staggering 476 million. I agree that we cannot simply destroy the economy or cripple industry, but surely we can do more to stop what will fast become an irreversible slide into climatic chaos. Combatting climate change is a global issue and Britain needs to lead the way, but we should also do what we can on a unilateral basis. Not only will it help cut carbon emissions, but it will give us the moral authority to campaign harder around the globe even against our close allies, the USA and Australia (still non-signatories to the Kyoto
Protocol).

It would seem that the government, once so adept at reading the political will and popular feeling of the nation, is now horribly adrift, cut off from the people it purports to represent and protect. In a recent poll 63% of people said that they would not mind paying higher taxes, where such taxes were constructed on an environmental basis. Only 34% objected. The British people are ready, willing and happy to do their bit to help reverse, or slow down, climate change, including - and I never thought I would hear myself say this - paying more in taxes. We have been notorious ever since the days of Thatcher about paying tax, but now we see a clear majority in favour of environmental taxes. The reasoning, I would imagine, is that at least you have some element of control over what you pay in this event. If you use your car less, you pay less tax; if you use power-efficient light bulbs, you pay less tax; if you recycle more, you pay less tax. It would be within our power to govern how much we are willing to pay and adjust our lifetsyles acccordingly. It's not too much to ask when the planet is at stake.

Of course, we can do our bit - we can accept our responsibilities as well as demand our rights, but the government must also do its bit. It must actively encourage sustainable energy resources, perhaps by offering initial tax breaks or governmental loans to companies starting up in the renewable energy sector. It must seriously investigate the hot topic of environmental taxes - perhaps, households that properly insulate their homes and recycle certain amounts per month should receive reductions in their council tax bills, while power inefficient or non-recycling households would face an increase in charges. Perhaps, we could tax inefficient light bulbs. Perhaps, we can make it more viable for more drivers to run their vehicles off alternative energy such as vegetable oil and sugar cane derivatives by lowering taxes on those items, while simultaneous increasing tax on 4 star, unleaded and diesel. Perhaps, tax can finally be levied on aviation fuel. There are limitless possibilities for fair environmental taxes and the government should prioritise the investigation.

It is a huge challenge for the government and all of us to fight the insidious creep of climate change, but fight it we must. The IPCC continues to estimate that global temperatures will continue to rise throughout this century and by 2100, the average temperature will be between 1.4% and 5.8% higher than today. The possibility of this occuring is nothing short of catastrophic and we must place controlling climate change high on the agenda of all political parties. What use is a booming economy when the planet is crumbling around our ears.

© Demosthenes

Water, Water Ev'rywhere and now we have to pay for it

2006-03-02T17:50:00.000Z

It's been on the cards for a while now, but yesterday Folkestone and Dover Water was officially designated a water scarcity area and is now empowered to introduce compulsory water metering. Before very long, we must assume that compulsory metering will become the norm across the entire nation. Currently, only around 25% of us pay for water by consumption as measured by metering, but this is certain to change soon and about time too.

As a concept it is non-sensical that we pay for our other essential utlities - such as electricity, gas and telephone - by consumption, but pay for water through the anachronistic rates system, which means that one household using, say, 100,000 litres per year pays the same as another in the same street which uses 400,000. It is simply not fair that water-efficient or low population households should subsidise those that are either inefficient or contain more consumers. Additionly, rates vary from district to district, so that - as The Guardian highlights today - the average Thames Water bill for 2005 was £211, while South West Water's was £357. Whilst, water metering may not iron out every wrinkle brought about by pricing differentials between the various water companies, it should make water payment generally fairer across Britain as a whole and certainly fairer within the same water company districts.

Fairer pricing based on consumption is one benefit, but there is also an environmental angle. We in the UK are gluttons with water. We believe it to be plentiful and perhaps it once was, but today with climate change, global warming and a reduction in rainfall across huge swathes of the country, particularly the south-east and East Anglia, ground water is drying up. Kent is not about to become the Gobi and Suffolk is not about to resemble the great red interior of Australia, but we must confront the lazy assumptions that we live in a place of abundant and sustainable water reserves. It is estimated by some groups that the average water consumption per person per day in the UK is 270 litres and yet approximately 80 - 100 litres per day should be sufficient to sustain each of us (without descending into scabrous dirtiness or suffering dehydration). I try to economise my water use in even the most basic and seemingly insignifcant ways - if I am boiling water for pasta, I will only use exactly what is necessary to cook the food; when I shave or brush my teeth I do not leave the tap running; I use the half-flush when required on my toilet; if I water the garden, I do so quickly and use only what I feel is required. You get the picture. I don't claim to be an environmental guru or holier than thou, but I do what I can and it probably saves a significant amount of water every day. However, when water metering comes in, I will try to do more, as not only is it the right thing to do environmentally, but it will save me money. I suspect that many people who perhaps do not try to conserve water themselves, will suddenly see the benefits when they are forced to pay by consumption and this can only be good.

That said, we must recognise that there are vulnerable groups in our society - the poor, the sick, the old, who may suffer through compulsory metering. The water companies must be forced to protect them. They will not do so of their own volition, at least not to the extent that would be acceptable to right-minded people, so the government (central or local) will have to intervene to ensure that those most at risk and most in need of our help do not suffer at the expense of a fairer, more environmentally-friendly system of water charging. By way of example, Folkestone and Dover Water have allowed only 12 families to date to qualify as vulernable families in need of subsidy. Surely, this cannot be enough and the criteria for vulnerability must be too strict. Issues like this will have to be addressed, before the water companies are allowed to get away with fleecing the most at risk in our country.

© Demosthenes

Constitutional Reform - boring or what?

2006-03-01T14:31:00.000Z

I vote "what" and here's why.

For the last 18 months, the Power commission, chaired by Helena Kennedy QC, has been touring the UK, its avowed intent to discover what is happening to our democracy and, in particular, why a culture of disengagement from the formal democratic politics in the UK has become so prevalent in the recent past. The commission was also invited to make recommendations, on the basis of its findings, on how best to halt the decline of this disengagement and reverse its process. Earlier this week, it published its report.

Much of what is set out in the commission’s neatly presented and clear report is admirable and contains a series of astute observations and equally astute recommendations. It is clear, not just from the findings presented, but also from any casual glance at contemporary Britain that people, particularly the young, feel increasingly distant from government, from decision-making and from power. Whilst many people, perhaps the majority in Britain will find this subject dry and uninspiring, I believe that it is a crucial issue and a great challenge for the government, the nation and its citizens to undertake. Constitutional reform may sound academic and esoteric, but it may bring us greater control over our lives and help to give us greater opportunities.

The two major political parties have for some time and mainly at the instigation of Tony Blair’s New Labour grown closer in political thought and ideology to such an extent that much of the government’s new Education Bill, soon to be presented in Parliament, bares an uncanny and, for some more traditional Labour activists, a disturbing resemblance to Kenneth Baker’s education bill of 1988 (at the height of Thatcherism). David Cameron claimed yesterday that there is a “clear choice between our [the Conservative Party’s] and Gordon Brown’s approach”, that there is clear blue water between Labour and Conservative, but the reality is mixed and not apparent. In the wake of Mr. Blair’s historic election victory in 1997, the Conservatives made a half-hearted lurch to the right in order to create a clear difference between the two parties, but the move soon dissolved into an embarrassment to the party and a turn-off for the electorate. Mr. Cameron and his advisers have been astute and they know that the modern battleground for middle England, and the crucial swing vote in elections, is growing smaller and smaller by the day. They seek to occupy what has rapidly become Mr. Blair’s personal politically-Centrist domain in the anticipation that Gordon Brown, once ensconced in Number 10, will pull the Labour Party back to the left. But I have seen nothing in Mr. Brown that suggests that such an anticipation is no more than a pipe dream. If anything, as Mr. Brown is groomed for a smooth transition into the Prime Minister’s office, he has been taking up and loudly advocating policies more readily associated with Mr. Blair and his followers – ID cards, the concept of Britishness, the fight against global terrorism and the such like. Before long, the bulk of the Labour and Conservative membership will be singing from the same hymn-sheet and the fringes (both extreme left and right) will be but a sideshow.

So, where does this leave us? It leaves us confused and perhaps disillusioned. We are asked to decide between two parties that are increasingly indistinguishable, but for the spin, the presentation and the sound-bite. No wonder many feel disengaged from politics when the choice is perceived to be limited in scope.

But choice is available, of course. You will have noticed that, so far, I have only spoken of two political parties in the UK. I have ignored the Liberal Democrats entirely and that, surely, is a significant issue. British politics should not just be about two parties, it should be a multi-party affair, but with our current electoral system of first-past-the-post, the balance of power will always lie with either Labour or Conservative. By way of anecdote, I have an acquaintance who lives in the constituency of East Finchley in London. At the last general election, she felt herself more politically aligned with the Lib Dems and found their manifesto more in tune with her own perceptions of the UK and the solutions required to remedy the many challenges that face the country. However, East Finchley was always going to be a tight and close-fought battle between Labour and Conservative, with the Liberal candidate falling a very distant third. In her opinion, a vote for the Lib Dems in May 2005 in East Finchley may as well have been a vote for the Conservatives, so she voted Labour as she had done in 1997 – better the devil you know combined with a categorical desire not to see the Conservatives back in power, she reasoned. This is just one example of the electoral system failing its citizens. How many people in 2005 simply did not vote because they thought their vote was wasted and the system unfair? The Lib Dems are, of course, just one minority party (though it represents a very significant minority), but there are many others, including the Greens and the UK Independence Party, as well as independent candidates, the most famous of whom was the former BBC correspondent, Martin Bell, who ousted Neil Hamilton in 1997. This, of course, was a rarity in the modern world of British party politics. Perhaps it would be a good thing for British politics to see more Martin Bells.

We need to engage more people, more directly in politics and offer them a broad scope of political choice, not just a choice of Labour or Conservative governments. We need people to feel that their voice and their opinions may be heard in Parliament and the only way to do that is to reform the electoral system, so that MPs are elected on a basis that more accurately and fairly represents popular attachment and voting – in other words, some format of proportional representation. You may feel that Green party MPs would simply be mung-bean munching hippies or that UKIP MPs would be retrograde xenophobes, but we have to accept the fact that many people in Britain may hold the opinions advocated by the Greens, by UKIP, by other parties and fair representation should be given to them. If people feel that their views will be heard on the highest political stages, then maybe they will feel that their vote is not watsed, maybe they will become more engaged in the political process. A new reformed electoral system will also allow for a greater scope of opinions to be heard and surely we must welcome this as a move forward and away from the middle-ground war being waged by Labour and Conservative and the old two party (Hobson's?) choice. I heard someone calling the concept trite last week, but the greatest strength of democracy is that it gives – or it should give – a voice, an outlet to the minority. Let’s see that reflected in Parliament and local government.

Local government is a hot topic at the moment, of course. David Miliband, the Minister for the Communities and Local Government, is currently outlining the government’s plans for a greater devolution of power from the central government to local representative bodies. Recent reports highlight the immense difference in local government between the UK and some of our European partners. The smallest representative body in Britain covers around 2,600 people – in France and Germany, it is a couple of hundred, give or take a dozen. Mr. Miliband identified that if the 1980’s were about the economy and the 1990’s were about public services, then the 2000’s must be about bringing more power to more people in order to give them more freedom to be what they can be. This is a laudable war cry and a clarion call we should all applaud, but the devil is in the detail. As yet, I have seen no firm proposals from Mr. Miliband or his colleagues detailing what powers will be delegated to local authorities, in what fashion and on what timetable. Given the Labour government's centralising tendencies, we should rightly be sceptical, but assuming that the action matches the rhetoric, then greater power in our communities is an ideal way to re-engage people in politics. Primary legislation will, however, have to re-visit a more thorny issue of representation at local level. Party politics is virulent in the UK and cannot, in reality, be “undone” or “unmade”, but – that said – the government must ensure that if it gives more power at district, council or community level, it must also allow more people to enter the political recruitment process and not necessarily on a party political basis. Although there will always be leanings to left, right or centre, local issues must – within the broader party context - be dealt with locally taking a common sense approach, based on local opinion, local discussion and local desires. One of the most interesting proposals from the Power commission is recommendation 24, which advocates that any member of the public should be allowed to institute legislative procedures if he or she obtains approximately 400,000 petition signatures (representing 1% of the electorate) for a particular proposal. At that stage, the proposal must, by law, be debated in Parliament. Even if rejected, the petitioner may collect a further 400,000 signatures at which time, the government will be obliged to offer a nationwide referendum on the matter. If passed, it will become law. Personally, I feel that such a power, though admirable in theory and reminiscent of Classical Athenian democracy, is perhaps not the wisest course on a national basis, but at local level, the idea could be a fantastic opportunity for communities to campaign on specific important or controversial issues, such as hospital closures, redevelopment or recycling.

There is a widespread perception that the British have become apathetic towards politics as we grow more economically content as a nation, but the truth is somewhat different. The numbers of people taking part in the so-called single issue campaigns has grown enormously in recent years, the most notable example of which is the Make Poverty History campaign, which has begun slowly to shape global politics in relation to Africa after clever and effective media presentation and a monumental pop concert in Hyde Park. The Power commission indicates that people have a genuine will to become re-engaged and revitalised by politics and, if this is the case, we need the government to help us achieve this end by instituting constitutional and electoral reform, perhaps by enacting at least some of the recommendations made in the Power report, but we – as citizens – have responsibilities as well as rights ourselves. We can help shape our futures if we show to government that we are committed to the process, that we are responsible and that we are interested in political issues. Why should the government act if it feels that widespeard, expensive and complex reform will result in the same low-turn outs for elections and the same sniping from the sidelines from those who complain, but refuse to help themselves. The Power report highlights areas of repeated discontent and, whilst many represent valid comment, some require input by ourselves. For example, people complained that there were too many political issues and policies for them to comprehend, that people feel they lack the information or knowledge to draw conclusions on policy issues and that voting procedures are inconvenient and unattractive. To me, these comments are bewildering. There is – particularly with the internet reaching millions – an enormous amount of material available and if we want to become more involved, if we want to help improve our lives, our communities and our country, then there is an onus of us to educate ourselves and use that knowledge to make what we each feel is the right decision. Without any will, desire or effort on our side, no amount of reform will end or reverse the disengagement. I happen to believe that most people in Britain are interested in politics in same way or another; I believe that we are not apathetic, that we wish to become part of the process in a more direct way, but we need to prepare ourselves for the responsibility, particularly at local level if significant power is devolved from central government. Commentators talk of the challenge to government on these issues, but every voting citizen in Britain is equally challenged. Let's live up to the expectation - it will be worth it.

For more information on the Power commission, visit: http://www.powerinquiry.org/