Hitchens vs Blair

Following his death, millions will, along with me, be greatly missing Christopher Hitchens, his speaking and writing. Here's a clip to illustrate:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16212418

Gaddafi and friends

Gaddafi and his friends Blair, Brown, Obama, Sarkozy, Assad, Putin, Rice, Van Rompuy, Berlusconi...

Click image to see a larger version.

BBC News - Poorest pupils '55 times less likely to go to Oxbridge'

No surprise at all that there is huge inequality and unfairness in our education system (and beyond) but this study puts figures on it. Shows the abject failure of the Blair and Brown Labour Governments, despite claims that their aim was a more equal society. Coalition Govt policies are likely to be inadequate and ineffective at tackling this issue despite claims of being 'radical' - they may even make the problem worse! Do you trust former members of the socially exclusive Oxford University student dining club* like PM David Cameron, London Mayor Boris Johnson and Chancellor George Osbourne to cut inequality? See the Bullingdon Club* photos - inequality goes right through to the Cabinet!

Pupils on free school meals are 55 times less likely to go to Cambridge or Oxford than those from private schools, the Sutton Trust has said.
The charity said it feared rising fees and the axing of a support programme would make it harder for poor students to get into England's top universities.
It also raised concerns about proposed measures to widen participation...

BBC News - Poorest pupils '55 times less likely to go to Oxbridge'

Huge Scottish Nationalist win over Gordon Brown's Labour

Well done you scots!!

(image from Lakelander's site)

While I'm using Lakelander's image of one Labour leader I must show you his very amusing Tony Blair/Radovan Karadzic combination in a post entitled 'Notorious war criminal to stand trial'.

Greens and local elections: radical, principled but pragmatic and your one chance for real progress

At the Green Party's launch of its local election campaign there were things said that particularly struck me as important and I thought them worth reproducing here:

Caroline Lucas, Green MEP, said:

"The Greens are your One Chance for truth and action on climate change. The Greens are your One Chance for decent schools and housing. The Greens are your One Chance for councillors that make your voice heard.

On climate change, for example, we will oppose more devastating airport expansion and more new road building programmes - and promote affordable, efficient public transport instead.

On education, the Greens will protect schools from cuts, closure and creeping privatisation, and will oppose wasteful, financially damaging PFI schemes.

On housing, we'll make sure that affordable housing is always part of new housing projects, and we'll help ensure that council and housing association tenants get the best and micro-renewable energy and installations.

And we're committed to listening to local people, and involving people in the decisions that affect them. That's why our candidates and councillors are working tirelessly across the country - and we hope to see record gains in this election as a result!"

Derek Wall , one of the Green Party's two Principal Speakers said:

"Blair and Brown have dashed the hopes of a nation for real action on social justice and an end to erosion of our education and health services.

Instead, Britain has been governed by Tory Party Lite for the last decade.

That is why Green Party cllrs around the country are challenging the Blairite polices of council house sell offs, of piece-meal privatisation of education, and failure on climate change.

The time has come - we cannot afford another 10 years of broken promises and inaction.
Greens offer a real way forward, another way of doing things. Where people are put before profit, where long term sustainability matters more than tomorrow's headlines.

Here in Millbank spin governed politics. People were sold a lie, that Labour really meant to change things. They were never serious about real change. And that is why they have failed.

Green politicians are different:

We are not funded by big business
We are not a party driven by spin rather than substance
We are a radical, principled but pragmatic force

With rising emissions, sleazy politicians and public trust at an all time low, principled Green politicians are needed now more than ever.

We can answer the call for change.
Vote Green on May 3rd."

Loss of local services, shops, pubs...makes us less green

My MP, Labour's Kerry McCarthy, has recently confirmed to me in writing that she does not support the Sustainable Communities Bill currently going through Parliament. She said,
'I do not support the Sustainable Communities Bill because I do not think there is any need for a separate piece of legislation on this issue.'

This is a great shame and a mistake. All around the UK local shops, post offices, pubs, services and facilities like local swimming pools, have declined rapidly under the current government, which she supports. This means that any action they have taken on this issue has been far from effective. The Sustainable Communities Bill would on the other hand give real power to local people to take action to protect and enhance their communities. Locally available facilities cut travel, boost quality of life and make us greener.

One would think from what PM Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have said that they strongly favour giving more power to local communities and that therefore they should support the Sustainable Communities Bill. After all in his speech to the Labour Party conference in 2006 Tony Blair said, 'People want power in their own hands...they wont accept a service handed down from on high. They want to shape it to their needs and the reality of their lives.' In addition Gordon Brown said at the same conference, 'People and communities should now take power from the state and that means...a reinvention of the way we govern.'

However, despite what they have said, far from giving power to local communities the Blair/Brown government has centralised power and presided over local community decline, making us a far less green society.

Politicians should also set a personal green example

Tony Blair and the government should set a good example on climate change by adopting more sustainable personal behaviour and so Philip C James letter ('Government must lead by example', Bristol Evening Post, January 15) hit the nail on the head. We all need to do our bit because it all adds up - the Government are asking us all to contribute and it is hypocritical if they are not doing likewise.

Philip asks whether Labour are ready to offer leadership on this issue. The signs are far from good. Tony Blair first said he had no intention of cutting back on personal air travel but then quickly announced he would start to offset his carbon emissions. I cannot see why Tony Blair would not help to promote the country he leads by saying that he would take a holiday or two here instead of always flying. What does he not like about the UK?

Whilst his very sudden conversion to offsetting his carbon is welcome up to a point, there are also issues with the effectiveness of some offsetting schemes. Its also the case that committment to carbon offsetting varies considerably across the Cabinet! What's more the government's own advice to businesses considering carbon offsetting says that action to minimise emissions should be taken first, with only emissions that cannot be eliminated then offset. This is excellent advice to all trying to make carbon cuts and Tony Blair himself should follow it.

In a survey of government ministers only 5 out of 14 questioned by The Guardian currently offset their personal carbon from flights. This is very poor. Secretary of State for Culture Tessa Jowell was quoted as saying, 'I'll be working to plant trees to offset my carbon emissions'. This shows a real lack of awareness at the heart of government about what makes a reliable carbon offsetting scheme - in the week they are launching an offsetting standard! There is no way as yet to accurately measure how much carbon is absorbed and released by forests and woods as trees go through their lifecycle. One EU study estimated that Europes forests absorbed somewhere between 120 and 280 million tonnes of carbon per year, indicating massive measurement uncertainty.

There is growing interest in carbon offsetting but people considering it, Cabinet members included, should look closely at the particular schemes used and shop around for the best. Those that are heavily reliant on tree planting may not be reliable in terms of carbon absorbed - the error in measurement can be as high as 50% according to one New Scientist report! This is perhaps no surprise as carbon absorption by trees depends on many things: species; age; our increasingly uncertain climate, especially droughts and forest fires; diseases; canopy type; a range of pollutants and other factors.

Tree planting done properly is a very good thing and in optimum conditions a lot of carbon can be absorbed but such conditions seldom exist and its very hard to know with accuracy how much is absorbed. There are still fears that foresters might cut down existing forests to plant carbon guzzling trees. There are also many competing land uses for areas around the world that might be considered for trees, not least food production.

In any case carbon offsetting by trees is only a temporary 'solution'. Once trees are mature they begin emitting net amounts of carbon as they begin decomposing in whole or part. They must be removed or managed so that locked up carbon is not simply released again a few decades on.

Its important that we dont come to rely on carbon offsetting, especially by tree planting. Its tempting to put off the real task of cutting pollution or wriggle off the hook of emissions targets. However, the only guaranteed way to tackle climate change is to adopt sustainable lifestyles, which in any case would enhance our general wellbeing. So come on Tony Blair and company - show us how this is done!

Pot (Government) and kettle (airlines): both black !!

'Its like the pot calling the kettle black'. In this case the pot is Government Environment Minister Ian Pearson, calling the kettle, budget airline Ryanair, black by recently saying they are "the irresponsible face of capitalism" for not acting to fight climate change. He has pointed to the airline and accused them of doing something that the Government he is a member of are guilty of doing themselves and so provides an excellent example of this saying.

"The pot" represented by the Blair Labour Government is very close to the kettle and has been going black cooking away over the fire for ten years. It has managed to achieve an increase in emissions that cause climate change of 2%, though one would never guess this from their warm words of concern about our climate. "The kettle" represented by the airlines has been boiling away over the fire, becoming black from the flames, helping the Government to achieve its rise in climate change emissions of 2% very efficiently and effectively.

The pot and the kettle are old friends who have turned black with time; the pot only sees the blackness which is on the kettle; he doesn't see the black on himself.

Its no wonder then that the airline critic was told by his bosses not to make any further comment on the issue!

Expensive nukes dont make us secure

It is wrong for the Government to spend £15 to £20 billion on new nuclear submarines to carry Trident nuclear missiles not least because the spending simply is not focussed on real threats to the security of our society. Securing sufficient, clean, green energy supplies, global terrorism and organised crime, climate change and a number of other issues all clearly represent security threats that we know will be ongoing for some time but investing in new nuclear submarines tackles none of these. Kingswood MP Roger Berry may not be my preferred political colour (Green) but he is right to say, 'Today's security threat is not one that can be met by nuclear weapons' ('Blair faces fight over new nukes', Bristol Evening Post, December 5).

This is not the only sense in which the £20 billion (more like £70 billion if one adds up the weapons and submarine lifetime expenditure) will be misused. At todays costs £20 billion would be enough to build 800 new schools, and who would say they aren't needed. It could pay for the protection of over 700 million acres of rainforest, or meet our UN Millenium Goal aid target of 0.7% of GDP every year for the next eight years, thus fighting global poverty which will add to our insecurity if not tackled ! There are many other life and security enhancing ways to spend the money.

Just think of what could be done to enhance state pensions or improve care for the elderly or improve aspects of the NHS with the billions to be spent on nuclear submarines armed with nuclear weapons. And lets not forget that the Germans, Italians, Spanish, Danish, Swedish and others in Europe and around the world do not feel they have to spend billions on nuclear weapons to make them more secure - so why do we?

Bristol North West MP Doug Naysmith is no Green but he is in tune with what will make us more secure when he said, 'We should be reducing nuclear arsenals, not increasing them.' ('Blair faces fight over new nukes', Bristol Evening Post, December 5). He is right because by not reducing nuclear weapons significantly, an aspiration of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signed decades ago, we have sent out the message to countries who have since developed nuclear weapons, like India, Pakistan, North Korea and possibly others, that possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons is a necessary and acceptable part of being a secure state. The resulting higher risk of wider availability of nuclear material may well enhance the ability of terrorists to terrorise on a larger scale, with 'dirty' bombs containing such material.

I'm glad that a number of MPs will oppose the Government, though I note that former radical left-winger, now Bristol South MP, Dawn Primarolo wont be among them. Tony Blair is likely to win the vote on this, most likely with Conservative support too. The Government have not and wont now be leading the world in nuclear disarmament. The destructive capacity they have decided to retain is equivalent to 1000 Hiroshima nuclear bombs. Why on Earth is such a massive capacity to indiscriminately annihilate needed? How can the Labour Government, or the Conservative and Lib-Dem opposition who also want a large nuclear arsenal, ever be considered Green if they favour 'defence' by threatening to destroy life on a mass scale?

Climate change action and costs

Government policies on climate change do not go far enough or fast
enough, just as past 'actions' have
been insufficient, slow or non-existent. UK carbon emissions are 2% higher
now than when Tony Blair came to power in 1997 (Govt's own figures!), despite the apparent
concern !

Successive govts have neglected real action on climate, and now
look where we are, with the Stern Report stating with authority that
climate change could cost trillions of pounds. The upward carbon pollution
trend needs to peak within ten to fifteen years if we are to keep temperature
rise to 2 degrees in the next 50 or 100 years, according to the climate
models.

Taking action in the early 80's or 90's when Greens (including me) were calling for it
would have been both easier and cheaper than it now will be, though acting
now is much cheaper and easier than taking no
action and suffering even more climate change! The chances of success for
any action on climate would also have been higher if we had acted earlier.

The Stern Report has underestimated the extent of economic change needed
to really tackle climate change. We are a factor of ten away from being
sustainable in resource and energy terms and need to establish a new
approach to socio-economics which seems to me to say that we need to gear
much more than 1% of GDP to the task!

Action needs to range across all areas involving the consumption of fossil
fuels at some point in the chain of economic events - these days this
means.....just about everything! Globalisation of trade is of course
rapidly raising carbon emissions levels....Also whilst the Stern Report's
primary focus is the economic impacts of climate change - I think it is
worth remembering the huge social and environmental impacts indicated in his report too! Frankly
its not so much the cost of climate change as the impacts on people and
the natural world that have always concerned me, though you cant of course
separate these off from economics as they are interdependent.

Without an economy which is reconciled with the environment we wont and
cant tackle climate change effectively. Stern and the Government are wrong
if they are saying that we can grow as in the past, but just pay a climate
change bill and carry on.

Priorities should be health, education and environment!

The government just doesn't seem to have its spending priorities right. One day I read about the future of wardens looking after the elderly in sheltered flats across Bristol being threatened by govt funding cuts of up to £9 million (Care Wardens Job Axe Fears, Bristol Evening Post, 10 October). The next day I read about Bristol facing a GP crisis in five years if we continue to train doctors at the same rate (Family Doctors in Crisis, Bristol Evening Post, 11 October) and also the denial of drugs costing as little as £2.50 per day to those suffering from Alzheimar's (How can they deny people this drug?, Bristol Evening Post, 11 October). These are all areas where one would think caring people would prioritise spending, along with education.

Given spending priorities like these I just dont understand why the government has committed itself to spending, not millions, but billions on a replacement for Trident nuclear missiles by saying it will retain Britain's nuclear so-called deterrent. What is more we have always been told that nuclear weapons work because they will never be used (the mutually assured destruction argument)!!

Tony Blair stood outside 10 Downing Street the other day and made a statement rightly criticising North Korea for exploding a test nuclear weapon, saying that they had spent vast sums whilst their people were poor and sometimes starving. Why doesn't he then follow the same logic, get his spending priorities right and direct money to where it is needed, such as the examples I have given or perhaps additional flood defences for Weston-Super-Mare or for investing in a creating a green future for todays young people and their children?

It seems to me a double immorality to spend money on threatening mass destruction with new nuclear weapons and at the same time denying people decent health, education, environmental and social care spending.