Wealthy = wrong????

Its pretty 'rich' that George Ferguson has 'been criticised by some Labour backers on social website Twitter over his personal wealth for allegedly being motivated by money.' (see story and online comments here). Isn't Ed Miliband quite a wealthy person? And others in the Labour Party? And aren't many donors to Labour very wealthy?

Its not inherently wrong to be wealthy!! Its how you've come by/made your wealth/money perhaps...and what you do with it when you've got it. George has used his wealth to good effect it seems to me (see image of the Tobacco Factory http://www.tobaccofactory.com/) - and he could obviously make a lot more money if he did not have the restrictions that inevitably and rightly come with becoming Mayor of Bristol!

George is wealthy. George has been a Liberal supporter in the past. George is not always 100% PC with his language...These are all very weak and feeble 'criticisms' indeed.

Bank on bankers?

To 'bank on' something means being able to expect or rely with confidence on it. Given that: bankers have lied to make them look more secure during the financial crisis and to make a profit (here); and have mis-sold specialist insurance to thousands of small businesses (here); on top of PPI insurance mis-selling, taking huge, fat, undeserved salaries and bonuses, and helping to take our economy and others to the brink...we clearly can't be confident that they operate within a decent ethical code. Our banking system's reputation, integrity and trustworthiness sinks even lower. Culture change is certainly needed if we are to build an economy capable of being sustainable (more here).

Sustainable Societies

Here's an interesting story about a Royal Society report which states that tackling over-consumption in rich countries and high population growth in the poorest are key to building sustainable societies. I'm very glad to hear this from an authoritative organisation but it is something I have been advocating for 30 years! Many others have been doing the same. Examples of my blog posts on this here.

I note that this Royal Society report says we need to go 'beyond GDP' as a measure of progress. This is also something I, along with others, have been advocating for 30 years (and in fact was the subject the dissertation I researched and wrote for my MSc in 1998/99). See examples here. 

Budget below the belt

Wouldn't it have been fairer, more just and better economics to keep the 50% tax rate and bring in additional measures to make sure that people could not avoid paying it so easily, if that's what is happening on a large scale? I thought we had debts to pay off and that the Govt needed the money for this.

There will be many well-off high rate tax payers who have circumstances such that they wont be liable to pay the additional wealth taxes in the budget, who will thus get a large net tax cut. Its a budget that George Osbourne's mates will like and benefit from I'm sure.

More on the budget here and here.

Swedish sameness

So, David Cameron is off to Sweden to attend the Nordic-Baltic Summit. Great place to go to learn a fair bit about equality. Sweden has much lower income equality than the UK (see here). Its gender equality is also much better: http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Society/Equality/Facts/Gender-equality-in-Sweden/.

I doubt very much that our PM will be adopting the Swedish approach though. They redistribute wealth using taxes and benefits. Public services are provided by a very well developed welfare state. Sweden's state is large. Public services are well developed and there is effective legislation to ensure that both men and women can have reasonably balanced work and family lives and good prospects for fair involvement at all levels of society. This is the opposite of Cameron's Conservatism.    

Caring, compassionate capitalism...contradiction

Capitalism, favouring private ownership, maximising private profit, decisions made by a free market, economic growth as the primary aim – is currently the subject of many party leader speeches. Reference has been made by Tory PM Cameron, Lib Dem Deputy PM Clegg and Labour Opposition Leader Miliband to making capitalism, as it currently works, more: responsible; moral; compassionate; caring – and thus popular and acceptable. This, at least, is an acknowledgement that capitalism is now operating: irresponsibly; immorally; uncaringly; without compassion – and that its popularity and public acceptability has suffered. However, along comes a chance for action that would send out a strong signal that significant change in the whole system is coming – and absolutely nothing is done, just as nothing was done by previous governments.The already very wealthy RBS boss Stephen Hester is allowed by the Govt to receive a bonus of about £1 million on top of his £1.2 million annual salary. RBS was saved using many billions of taxpayers money and is 82% publicly owned, the PM has said we are all in difficult economic times together, has said he wants to tackle excessive pay and bonuses...words, words, only words. See here, here and here for more.

The solutions offered up by the Tory/Liberal Govt, previous Tory and Labour Governments and the current Labour Opposition are those of capitalism – the very thing they have all described as deficient in some way. Coalition Ministers talk of: the importance of finance; the deficit and its ‘correction’ through cuts and freezing public sector pay; economic growth as essential; how we must remove obstacles to growth; how growth should be led by private enterprise; their pro-market, pro-business, pro-competition agenda. They say high taxes on rich people and companies could send them abroad. Private, market incentives are to operate in Royal Mail, the NHS and Higher Education. Has it occurred to them that solving the problems of capitalism with more capitalism may well be like solving the problems of alcoholism with more alcohol? Show me a version of capitalism that is or can be developed to be socially sustainable because it shares wealth fairly and environmentally sustainable because it does not rely on and run down finite resources and you will get my attention!!   

More posts on capitalism:

http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com/2010/01/when-will-bankers-like-this-get-their.html

http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/697599

http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com/2010/10/capitalist-ideology-dominates-cuts.html  

http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com/2008/09/cabot-circus-consumerism-capitalism.html
http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com/2010/11/house-of-cards-economics.html

Overpaid Ormondroyd

Occupy Bristol protesters question leaders over pay rates.Why have so many comments on this story simply attacked those asking the questions? Its the issue that counts and tactical rather than fair argument is a distraction from the very important matter of who is paid what and why - and whether its fair and deserved. The current Chief Executive Jan Ormondroyd (pictured) is paid £107,000 per year more now than in 1998 - 122 per cent more than her predecessor 14 years ago. This £7600 a year rise every year for ten years, way above inflation and bearing no relation to the performance of Bristol City Council, cannot be right. Less than 10% a year says one person - but this sort of level of sustained increase has only been given to those already well paid and wealthy. Where's the justice in that?

Proper progress?

The folly of only adding when producing national accounts aand viewing progress in narrow terms.

On closing the gap between rich and poor

Author Danny Dorling claims the British people need to learn the lessons of the 1930s and do something about the growing gap between the super rich and everyone else.

BBC News - Author Danny Dorling on closing gap between rich and poor

George Monbiot – Wealth Destroyers

Great piece here:

George Monbiot – Wealth Destroyers

Goose steps and mass graves? We're only trying to save the world - Telegraph

Brilliant article in the Daily Telegraph from Robert Webb (pictured) 'one of Britain's most popular comedians, [who]brings his wit and imagination to the Telegraph's comment pages with capricious stories of his everyday life.' We need more communication on politics and climate change like this!

When the Martians finally invade and make me Lord High Protector of the Earth, I like to think that my first act will be to have myself arrested. It might be useful if those who spend a lot of time banging on about how much they love liberty ask themselves if they would do the same thing.

What would you do? A quick tweak here and there, and then hold elections? More than a tweak? It's the whole Earth, so there's quite a bit to put right. And you'll need people you trust to help: friends… maybe family! And what about those Earthlings who don't appreciate your efforts? Well, protest is one thing, but when they start to really interfere with your helpful plans for them, then it might be time to be a bit firm – which is just your way of showing how much you love them. So the Friendly Protectorship might go on slightly longer than we first imagined. Best to give it a while: say 30 years? A lifetime?

Yes, you've guessed it: this week's column is about the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas MP. If you don't immediately understand the connection, then that's because you are sane. To have made the mental leap, you would need to belong to the head-banging libertarian/Ukip fringe who seem to think that all Lefties are born tyrants. You might be tempted to offer them the figure of George Orwell – who spent a lifetime defending the values of the democratic Left against the triple menace of communism, fascism and imperialism – but that doesn't work on the head-bangers, because they think Orwell is one of them. This indicates a psychological problem that experts have identified as "an inability to read a book properly".

Anyway, Lucas – who this week made an attempt to make the House of Commons work more efficiently, and was roundly patronised for her efforts – makes an almost perfect hate figure for the head-bangers, not just because she shows worrying signs of talking about wealth redistribution and actually meaning it, but because of the inevitable scale of aspiration that is part of the Green agenda. They look at her and think: "This woman doesn't just want to keep the 50p rate, she wants to change the entire Earth! This can only mean jackboots."

I say she's an "almost" perfect hate figure because she doesn't have an eye-patch or a hook or wear swastika earrings. In fact, it's a bit inconvenient all round that, when interviewed, she sounds quite sensible. Still, that won't matter. There's a YouTube video posted by "ukipmedia" where, to my ear, Lucas is clearly winning a debate with Ukip spokesman David Campbell Bannerman. At the point where she says, "People are dying from climate change, David", the video then clunkily loops back so we can hear her say it again another three times. The intended effect is presumably to highlight some kind of "gaffe" or standout absurdity, but in fact it reveals far more about the mentality of the poster than the subject. It's the use of repetition that is sinister here, not the thing that's being repeated. "People are dying from climate change" is not a remarkable statement; it is a scientific commonplace.

Given the bitter tone of the environmental debate, I imagine that this last sentence will have made some of you really quite cross. The YouTube clip has inspired seven pages of comments, characterised in the main by unhinged vitriol and references to totalitarian mass graves.

Let me have a go at understanding these people: wish me luck. I suppose that if you really think climate change is a sham; if you really think it's possible for a global scientific community to get together to fabricate a mountainous embarrassment of evidence in support of a particular theory and that, furthermore, they are able to hoodwink successfully – or even secretly conspire with – hundreds of governments and political parties, who are wildly opposed on everything else, so that there is a consensus that something should be done, then I suppose you're going to be quite annoyed when, as a result of this mammoth fraud, someone asks you to turn the central heating down.

Because if what they're saying is true, then our only way out of it is through unprecedented, long-term collective action. And human beings are really not very good at unprecedented, long-term collective action. And, knowing our history, we certainly don't like the look of that word "collective". Or, for that matter, "action". So better to believe the whole thing is a lie: Jeremy Clarkson will back us up, and he's a fun guy.
Believe me – I don't want to be on the un-fun side of the argument. I enjoy a visit to ClarksonWorld along with the next man, but I can't live there. All the rides are free because someone else is paying. And I sympathise with the daunted. I'm pretty daunted. The crushing scale of the thing, the complexity of getting agreements between countries at different stages of industrial and political development, the technological challenges, the whole seeming futility of it makes you want to club Caroline Lucas around the head with a patio heater to shut her up.

But still, I don't "get" where coercion, goose steps and Room 101 is implied in any of this. A failure of imagination on my part, no doubt. Maybe the Martians should appoint David Campbell Bannerman instead. What would he do?

Goose steps and mass graves? We're only trying to save the world - Telegraph

BBC - Richard Black's Earth Watch: H for 'human': The missing climate link?

Governments reliance on technical solutions alone to cut carbon pollution causing climate change is doomed to failure. Technical progress tends to be straight line whereas environmental impacts are growing on an accelerating upward curve (geometrically, exponentially) - one thus cant keep pace with the other. Social, economic, political, behavioural and technical changes are needed in a coherent combination to cut carbon emssions to a level we can sustain. This includes: not thinking that issues can be summed up by a simple equation; tackling multiple causes through joined up thinking; and changing the attitude to wealth that currently dominates in particular.

As many commentators have pointed out down the years, virtually all the hopes expressed by governments in terms of reducing carbon emissions ultimately hang on technology.

It stems from the famous IPAT equation:
Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology

...sometimes expressed as...

Impact = Population x GDP/capita x Impact/GDP

BBC - Richard Black's Earth Watch: H for 'human': The missing climate link?

Letters: Greed not greens cause hunger | Environment | The Guardian

Excellent letter in The Guardian:

Letters: Greed not greens cause hunger Environment The Guardian

The Channel 4 documentary What the Green Movement Got Wrong (Last night's TV, 5 November) in our view made a series of misguided and inaccurate allegations and assumptions. It identified GM as a solution to hunger and implicated anti-GM campaigners for exacerbating food insecurity. As development organisations, we consider the documentary was extremely biased against environmental organisations that do so much to promote positive solutions. Hunger is a blight on humanity, but it is a political and economic problem. Its root causes include the broken and biased trading system; the bankers who gamble on the price of staple foods; and land grabs by financiers – all of which make food unaffordable for the hungry and deny their right to food.

In our view, the most significant impact that GM companies have made is to dominate the seed chain, selling expensive and patented seeds to farmers, seeds that are used more for livestock feed, cotton and biofuels – not for feeding people. The documentary didn't include any independent voices from civil society in the global south who are campaigning against GM and for local sustainable food production.

Had they done so, it is likely to have become clear that the small-scale farmers who provide food for most people in the world are not calling for GM technologies that are beyond their control. They are calling for political will from governments to take on the corporate lobbyists and protect their land, natural resources and production systems; a fair trading system to ensure fair prices; and a fair hearing from governments and documentary-makers on the future food system.

Deborah Doane World Development Movement
Patrick Mulvany UK Food Group
Andrew Scott Practical Action
John Hilary War on Want

Poor suffer most from spending review cuts

Deputy PM Nick Clegg is very unwise and unmeasured indeed to launch such an outspoken attack on the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) - using words like 'frightening people' and 'airbrushing' - because it is very widely respected for its expertise, independence and authority. This is not good leadership and in fact both Nick Clegg and Chancellor George Osbourne praised the IFS highly during the summer general election! Take a look at why the IFS regard the spending review as on the whole affecting poorer people more than richer people here. For me it makes very good sense to conclude that the poor will suffer most because they are the ones most reliant on the public services and benefits that have been savagely cut - and even the government's own figures (see image), calculated in their own way, show that the bottom 10% are hit hard. Government attempts at making the cuts 'fair' are far too small.

Spending review: Clegg attacks "nonsense" IFS warning - Channel4 News

More on this issue from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11598234

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6397563/ifs-the-spending-review-was-regressive-sorta.thtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9113000/9113265.stm

http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2010/10/spending-review-progressive-or-regressive

Capitalist ideology dominates cuts decisions

Excellent piece by George Monbiot (see quote below). The spending cuts process is dominated by Tory capitalist ideology more than practical necessity. The Lib Dems are backing the Tories to the hilt - so much for Vince Cable's concerns about capitalism (this never did have substance anyway especially given that he is privatising the Royal Mail and backs the establishment of a free market in tuition fees...ie he is extending capitalism!! More on this issue soon.).

Monbiot.com » Britain’s Shock Doctrine

...Public bodies whose purpose is to hold corporations to account are being swept away. Public bodies whose purpose is to help boost corporate profits, regardless of the consequences for people and the environment, have sailed through unharmed. What the two lists suggest is that the economic crisis is the disaster the Conservatives have been praying for. The government’s programme of cuts looks like a classic example of disaster capitalism: using a crisis to re-shape the economy in the interests of business....

Water Words

Pairs of words that sum up a lot of water issues: life’s essential; renewable...potentially; community rooting; unevenly distributed; wasted widely; polluted commonly; rich, 100’s l; poor 10’s l; piped...UK; carried...Africa; city...leaks; extremely useful; farming, mostly; cooling, cleansing; ‘universal’ solvent; reservoirs, dams; socio-environmental havoc; community uprooting; climate changing; needs...wants; conflict prevention; modest measures; efficiency, accessibility; massive benefits!
http://blogactionday.change.org/

Wealth: water or diamonds? What is worth more to the thirsty and hungry?

Ed Miliband drew on the well known Oscar Wilde quote ‘What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.’ in his first conference speech as Labour leader. Strange coming from a man who directly equates ever increasing money flow through our economy (GDP growth) with progress and wellbeing. Ed, along with Tory David Cameron and Lib Dem Nick Clegg, supports and advocates a corrupted notion of wealth which is narrow, materialist and cash-value centred.

Wealth creation has come to mean the stockpiling of affluence, running down finite natural resources, wasting and mismanaging potentially renewable resources like water such that many people around the globe struggle even to get enough to drink and wash. What is worth more to the thirsty and hungry – water or diamonds?

‘Value’ is largely what can be bought and sold if you have Ed’s (and Dave’s and Nick’s) view. The rich continue to hoard, deny the poor, and build for their leisure, recreation and luxury. The poorest around the globe continue to be unable to meet their basic needs such as decent public clean water supply and healthy sewage disposal systems. In fact the rich (and relatively speaking that’s most of us living in the Western hemisphere) are rich precisely because others are poor – GDP growth, Ed’s, Dave’s and Nick’s primary focus, has been very large over many decades and in many countries but numbers unable to meet basic needs are also very high!

We are GDP growing out of proportion to the proper, healthy working of life support systems. These systems include: those that can continually supply rainwater; those that keep our climate in a reasonably stable balance; those that process our soils, keeping them productive; many that keep ecosystems in a diverse state. Furthermore, we are sapping the energies and threatening the existence of the whole interconnected water, air, soil and biodiversity system – yet this is the source of our resources and the basis of our lives and thus is our true wealth.

We are also GDP growing out of proportion to the healthy working of socio-economic systems. Acting on the notion of wealth creation as increasing money flow through our economy has resulted in relatively small numbers of individuals and institutions with inordinate, concentrated cash and property. This inequality and unfairness decreases quality of life and as time passes is increasingly destabilising. Very strange, then, that Ed – and Dave and Nick – talk so much about building a fair society.

To benefit people and planet, GDP growth needs to pass tests of: efficiency; renewability; respecting environmental limits; building stronger local communities; meeting needs now and in the future; local and global fairness; health, wellbeing and quality of life. This means taking a very different view of wealth.

For more on water and related issues see: http://blogactionday.change.org/

BRISTOL City chairman Steve Lansdown raised £58 million yesterday by selling off shares in the stockbroker firm he helped to found.

Lansdown: now not living in the UK let alone Bristol or the West Country; now avoiding paying taxes here but clearly has made and is making shed loads of cash here....does he sound like someone committed to this country and this city to you?? Maybe someone would like to make the case for this man ??

BRISTOL City chairman Steve Lansdown raised £58 million yesterday by selling off shares in the stockbroker firm he helped to found.

Mr Lansdown – who has a personal fortune of £452m – recently bought a house on Guernsey and is now living full-time in the tax-free Channel haven.

Bristol City Council parks and green spaces sell-off

Its International Year of Biodiversity this year and what does our so-called green city want to do? Flog off some of our parks and green spaces! Given the very strong reaction from the public to this council plan from all over the city it would be undemocratic to continue with it – in fact they should be planning to increase green spaces wherever it is possible to do so as there is a value to them well beyond cash.

There are leisure, tourism, recreational, entertainment, sporting and health benefits in open, green spaces. Green spaces also help attract and keep businesses and help them to attract and retain the staff they need. There are key ecological and environmental function benefits eg storm water drainage and thus flood protection, as the land soaks up, temporarily stores and then gradually releases rain; taking carbon dioxide from the air, helping to fight climate change; provision of wildlife habitat and food supply, which aids biodiversity.

In an urban area open, green spaces are vital to the quality of our lives, offering relief from the all too common congestion and other negative effects of development. They are a way of connecting with and appreciating the natural world – vital to wellbeing and to encouraging respect for nature. We sorely need this respect in order to build the green attitudes needed to fight extremely serious environmental (and thus security) threats. We would do well to remember that even the scrubbiest, scruffiest bit of land (called poor quality, low productivity, marginal or ‘surplus’ by Bristol City Council) will absorb, store and gradually release rain, absorb carbon and other pollutants, grow wildflowers, provide a perch and perhaps some food for birds, and provide people with a feeling of space.

The Bristol Evening Post is absolutely right to speak out against these plans (‘Council must see bigger picture’, Post June 29) stating that green spaces are ‘not simply there for this generation’ and that we are merely ‘custodians of these open spaces’. I am working with the newly elected Green Councillor for Southville Tess Green following through on the 338 signature e-petition I submitted to the council when the Parks and Green Spaces policy was much discussed back in 2008. They failed to listen then but I hope they will now change their minds in response both to very strong public feeling and to the very clear multiple environmental, economic and social benefits.

Budget for people and planet?

Spot the serious green measures in this week's budget? There weren't any! The budget showed no respect for our real wealth and was unfair both for present and future generations. The VAT rise, benefit cuts , public sector freeze, govt departmental budget cuts of 25%, and failure to begin planning for and investing in a greener society will all hit the people, communities and the environment that is our real wealth. In 1997 Robert Costanza estimated that the total value of all our planet's ecosystem goods and services was a massive US $33 trillion - that's US $ 33,000,000,000,000, greater than the economic growth of the all the world' economies combined! Well worth protecting I'd say. There are huge problems with producing such estimates of course - is it water or diamonds that are more valuable to thirsty and hungry people? A subject I will return to I'm sure. If you accept the premises and methodology you are also likely to accept that this US $33 trillion figure is a vast underestimate!

http://www.teebweb.org/Home/tabid/924/language/en-US/Default.aspx

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v387/n6630/abs/387253a0.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/polasky.html

http://www.grist.org/article/what2/