A UK nuclear industry spokesman said last Friday that the survival of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station after the earthquake was testimony to the safety of nuclear power. He is now probably eating his words as the number of reactors heading towards meltdown increases. The level of radioactivity in Tokyo is now twenty times higher than normal and increasing. The US Army are being kept 50 miles away from the power station, unlike the civilian 12 mile limit. If it wasn't just so appalling, I would be tempted to say the Green Movement told you so.
A big feature of the reporting of this disaster has been the tendency of the BBC to down play the seriousness of the situation in their reporting, compared to other world news media. Sounds like their political masters are calling the shots as usual. We know that the ConDem Government will continue to back nuclear power, as the Tories see big profits for their friends and the Lib Dems seem determined to go back on all the principles they ever used to stand for. The irony is that with proper investment in home insulation and renewable energy as the Green Party suggested at the last election, nuclear power generation would be unnecessary.
Wednesday 16 March 2011
Monday 17 January 2011
ConDems Privatise the NHS
The Prime Minister lied to us again today. After claiming during the general election that there would be no large re-organisation of the NHS, he announced one today. Claiming that this did not mean privatisation, he announced that the NHS will be run by GPs, who are, ofcourse, private enterprises.
Ofcourse, GPs have no experience of running billion pound enterprises, so inevitably they will hire medical management companies to run their businesses. I predict that within three years, the NHS will effectively be managed by a handful of foreign controlled "healthcare partners" and privatisation will be a "fait accompli".
Another example of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats saying one thing to get elected and doing the exact opposite when in power.
Ofcourse, GPs have no experience of running billion pound enterprises, so inevitably they will hire medical management companies to run their businesses. I predict that within three years, the NHS will effectively be managed by a handful of foreign controlled "healthcare partners" and privatisation will be a "fait accompli".
Another example of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats saying one thing to get elected and doing the exact opposite when in power.
Sunday 16 January 2011
The Banking Con
The bankers who are urging us to "move on" from the bankers' bonus issue are right. It is not the bonuses we should be focusing on, but the artificial profits these bonuses are based upon. We all know that the majority of financial transactions in the City have nothing to do with financing trades in goods and services, but are pure speculation, or gambling if you prefer.
But it is gambling with loaded dice. Through the use of interest rate swaps and other derivatives, massive bank to bank financial transactions can be manipulated by a small banking elite. Bank profits are boosted by massively increasing the cost of banking overall just by the sheer number of transactions and the shepherding of the resulting profit into the investment banking arms of these banks. The winners are the international banking elite who "justify" their bonuses on the back of these manufactured trades. The losers are the banks customers, including investors, who get higher costs and lower returns than they otherwise would. The fact that investors do not complain about these lower returns shows just how profitable banking can be. Eventually these manufactured trades get so complex and the artificial profits so high that the whole system collapses, but hey, by this time these banks are "too big to fail" and gullible governments step in to bail them out.
Having worked at a firm of money brokers, I have seen just how enormous this banking con has become. Governments need to work together to call the bankers bluff by introducing a punitive Tobin tax on speculative transactions, as well as outlawing artificially created trades which benefit no one except the bankers themselves.
But it is gambling with loaded dice. Through the use of interest rate swaps and other derivatives, massive bank to bank financial transactions can be manipulated by a small banking elite. Bank profits are boosted by massively increasing the cost of banking overall just by the sheer number of transactions and the shepherding of the resulting profit into the investment banking arms of these banks. The winners are the international banking elite who "justify" their bonuses on the back of these manufactured trades. The losers are the banks customers, including investors, who get higher costs and lower returns than they otherwise would. The fact that investors do not complain about these lower returns shows just how profitable banking can be. Eventually these manufactured trades get so complex and the artificial profits so high that the whole system collapses, but hey, by this time these banks are "too big to fail" and gullible governments step in to bail them out.
Having worked at a firm of money brokers, I have seen just how enormous this banking con has become. Governments need to work together to call the bankers bluff by introducing a punitive Tobin tax on speculative transactions, as well as outlawing artificially created trades which benefit no one except the bankers themselves.
Wednesday 8 December 2010
Lib Dem Choices
We recently heard that a Lib Dem MP was likely to choose to vote for the tripling of university tuition fees to "punish" students for daring to demonstrate at his office. Today (8/12/2010) we have Nick Clegg telling us it is all about choices. So let's see what he has chosen to do instead of honouring his pledge on tuition fees.
The Lib Dem choice is to spend billions of pounds on fighting a war in Afghanistan, rather than on educating our children. The Lib Dem choice is to invest billions in nuclear power stations, none of which will be operational before the shortfall in energy predicted by Ofgen in 2015 and which will leave our children with a legacy of nuclear waste as well as debts of £39,000 each. The Lib Dem choice is to spend billions on a replacement for the Trident nuclear missile system, to let the banks pay only a fraction of what their mistakes cost the UK taxpayer and let tax dodgers squirrel away untaxed billions in tax havens.
Most shamefully for me, a former Liberal Democrat candidate, is that all of those decisions represent promises made by Lib Dems at the general election, which have been broken within weeks of getting elected. Nick Clegg was lying then and is lying now. He said that no Westminster party was offering to abolish tuition fees. The Green Party and our leader, Caroline Lucas MP has long called for the abolition of tuition fees, paid for by not doing the things above that Lib Dems said they would not do. In addition millions would be saved just abandoning the bureaucracy of collecting tuition fees.
Sadly, we know that the Lib Dems (unlike Caroline Lucas) are now an irrelevance in Parliament. Whatever they decide to do on the Tuition Fees vote, they are too divided to make a difference to the outcome. However, if they all vote against a rise in tuition fees as they promised at the general election, they might just save what little credibility they have left.
The Lib Dem choice is to spend billions of pounds on fighting a war in Afghanistan, rather than on educating our children. The Lib Dem choice is to invest billions in nuclear power stations, none of which will be operational before the shortfall in energy predicted by Ofgen in 2015 and which will leave our children with a legacy of nuclear waste as well as debts of £39,000 each. The Lib Dem choice is to spend billions on a replacement for the Trident nuclear missile system, to let the banks pay only a fraction of what their mistakes cost the UK taxpayer and let tax dodgers squirrel away untaxed billions in tax havens.
Most shamefully for me, a former Liberal Democrat candidate, is that all of those decisions represent promises made by Lib Dems at the general election, which have been broken within weeks of getting elected. Nick Clegg was lying then and is lying now. He said that no Westminster party was offering to abolish tuition fees. The Green Party and our leader, Caroline Lucas MP has long called for the abolition of tuition fees, paid for by not doing the things above that Lib Dems said they would not do. In addition millions would be saved just abandoning the bureaucracy of collecting tuition fees.
Sadly, we know that the Lib Dems (unlike Caroline Lucas) are now an irrelevance in Parliament. Whatever they decide to do on the Tuition Fees vote, they are too divided to make a difference to the outcome. However, if they all vote against a rise in tuition fees as they promised at the general election, they might just save what little credibility they have left.
Sunday 28 November 2010
Torture on British Streets
We saw torture on our streets last week. More shockingly, the torture of schoolchildren by British police officers, whose job is to protect and serve, not bully our children. A joyful protest by students last Wednesday was turned into a new attack on democracy in the UK by the police.
Let's be clear kettling is deliberate and unlawful torture. We all have the right to peacefully protest and the police have no right to unlawfully stop peaceful protesters from going home.
What is kettling? In the words of Laurie Penny of the New Statesman, who was caught up in the heat of the kettle, it is to trap people in the open with no water or toilets or space to sit down. “It takes a shockingly short time to reduce ordinary kids to a state of primitive physical need” she says. “Without blankets, food or first aid, it's unspeakably cruel when it's done for six hours on the coldest night of the year, in sub-zero temperatures, to minors, some of whom don't even have a jumper.”
“Children who have fainted, and need medical attention, or the loo are denied their basic rights. The Police decide when old people can get warm, when the diabetics can get their insulin, when the kid having a panic attack can go home to her mum. It's a way of making you feel small and scared and helpless, a way for the state's agents to make you feel that you are nothing without them, making you forget that a state is supposed to survive by mandate of the people, and not the other way around.”
This is torture and we need the legal eagles to take them to court. There will be further protests and next time we may not have brave school children stopping the agents provocateur from turning a peaceful protest into a riot. That, of course, is what the police want. They were hitting peaceful protesters with their batons last Wednesday, just imagine what they could do if they can cause a riot? In recent protests most students have said they did not know the minority who caused trouble. A combination of agents provocateur and police unlawful kettling is going to provide government with the excuse they need to further curtail our civil liberties. With a Government of liars who were elected on false promises, we are going to see big confrontations on our streets in the coming months. As a former Liberal, it is a source of great sadness for me to see the Liberal Democrats being part of removing Liberty from our society and causing children to be tortured on our streets.
Let's be clear kettling is deliberate and unlawful torture. We all have the right to peacefully protest and the police have no right to unlawfully stop peaceful protesters from going home.
What is kettling? In the words of Laurie Penny of the New Statesman, who was caught up in the heat of the kettle, it is to trap people in the open with no water or toilets or space to sit down. “It takes a shockingly short time to reduce ordinary kids to a state of primitive physical need” she says. “Without blankets, food or first aid, it's unspeakably cruel when it's done for six hours on the coldest night of the year, in sub-zero temperatures, to minors, some of whom don't even have a jumper.”
“Children who have fainted, and need medical attention, or the loo are denied their basic rights. The Police decide when old people can get warm, when the diabetics can get their insulin, when the kid having a panic attack can go home to her mum. It's a way of making you feel small and scared and helpless, a way for the state's agents to make you feel that you are nothing without them, making you forget that a state is supposed to survive by mandate of the people, and not the other way around.”
This is torture and we need the legal eagles to take them to court. There will be further protests and next time we may not have brave school children stopping the agents provocateur from turning a peaceful protest into a riot. That, of course, is what the police want. They were hitting peaceful protesters with their batons last Wednesday, just imagine what they could do if they can cause a riot? In recent protests most students have said they did not know the minority who caused trouble. A combination of agents provocateur and police unlawful kettling is going to provide government with the excuse they need to further curtail our civil liberties. With a Government of liars who were elected on false promises, we are going to see big confrontations on our streets in the coming months. As a former Liberal, it is a source of great sadness for me to see the Liberal Democrats being part of removing Liberty from our society and causing children to be tortured on our streets.
Friday 29 October 2010
EU Budget Farce
Forgive me if I treat David Cameron's boast of saving money from the EU with some scepticism. When our local services are likely to be cut by 28% in line with the cut in Local Government grants, a 3% increase in the EU budget is hardly to be celebrated. When 600 jobs may be lost among Armed Forces support staff at Catterick, local people should rebel at such EU profligacy.
Thanks in part to Tony Blair's spiteful hand back of our EU rebate as he was hounded out of office in 2007, this country will still be forking out £6.5bn every year to pay for the EU. What does that pay for? Among other things an increase in EU bureaucrats' entertainment budget! And the extraordinary thing is that the EU budget has never been properly audited. Millions are lost every year and the EU budget office fail every single year to account for it, leaving the EU with qualified accounts (i.e. inaccurate).
The Tories and Liberal Democrats should honour their pre-election promises and have a referendum on our EU membership. As the Germans are insisting on an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty to facilitate the latest Euro-zone bail out of failing economies like Greece and Portugal, the coalition has the perfect opportunity. After all it was part of the Con Dem coalition agreement that there no further powers would be handed to Europe without a referendum.
Will we now see the will of the majority of the people prevail and Britain at last throw off the shackles of EU membership? Don't hold your breath. How many other promises have the Con Dem coalition kept?
Thanks in part to Tony Blair's spiteful hand back of our EU rebate as he was hounded out of office in 2007, this country will still be forking out £6.5bn every year to pay for the EU. What does that pay for? Among other things an increase in EU bureaucrats' entertainment budget! And the extraordinary thing is that the EU budget has never been properly audited. Millions are lost every year and the EU budget office fail every single year to account for it, leaving the EU with qualified accounts (i.e. inaccurate).
The Tories and Liberal Democrats should honour their pre-election promises and have a referendum on our EU membership. As the Germans are insisting on an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty to facilitate the latest Euro-zone bail out of failing economies like Greece and Portugal, the coalition has the perfect opportunity. After all it was part of the Con Dem coalition agreement that there no further powers would be handed to Europe without a referendum.
Will we now see the will of the majority of the people prevail and Britain at last throw off the shackles of EU membership? Don't hold your breath. How many other promises have the Con Dem coalition kept?
Monday 25 October 2010
Coalition Cause New Recession
UK economic growth in the 3rd quarter has fallen to just 0.4% from the 1.2% in the previous quarter. A two-thirds reduction in growth is likely to bring about another lot of "quantitative easing" i.e. printing another £50bn of fake money by the Bank of England. As on previous occasions when the Government did this, it will undermine the pound, causing yet another fall in the value of sterling.
The cuts and one million job losses (estimate by accountancy firm PWC) that will be caused by the Con Dem coalition's £81bn annual reduction in public spending, is already "damaging household confidence, weakening investment intentions and depressing the economy" (Independent 25/10/10). Along with a devaluation of the currency, the coalition is well on its way to causing yet another recession.
We should be spending money saved from cancelling Trident and withdrawing from the Afghanistan on investing in Green Jobs making our homes, hospitals and public buildings more fuel efficient and saving much more money (and lives) in the long run. All things the Lib Dems promised, but reneged on once elected.
The cuts and one million job losses (estimate by accountancy firm PWC) that will be caused by the Con Dem coalition's £81bn annual reduction in public spending, is already "damaging household confidence, weakening investment intentions and depressing the economy" (Independent 25/10/10). Along with a devaluation of the currency, the coalition is well on its way to causing yet another recession.
We should be spending money saved from cancelling Trident and withdrawing from the Afghanistan on investing in Green Jobs making our homes, hospitals and public buildings more fuel efficient and saving much more money (and lives) in the long run. All things the Lib Dems promised, but reneged on once elected.
Friday 22 October 2010
Stop Finger Printing Children
Yet another local school is introducing the finger printing of school children. These systems are used for such things as libraries and cashless catering as an administrative convenience.
As Terry Thomas, Professor of Criminal Justice Studies at Leeds Metropolitan University has said "A whole generation of children not involved with any criminal behaviour may be growing up thinking fingerprinting is just a 'normal' way of being identified, and innocuous phrases like school 'kiddy-printing' only further minimises what is going on. Children are being inducted into the world of the 'surveillance society' without really knowing what it means."
This practice is the thin end of the wedge in an increasingly intrusive state. Deputy PM Nick Clegg denounced the practice in his "freedom" speech just after the election, committing the Government "to end the scandal of children being fingerprinted at school without their parent’s consent".
However, at the same time the Con Dem coalition has provoked a civil liberties storm after reviving Labour's "Big Brother" plans to track details of every phone call, email and website visit in Britain (Independent 22/10/10).
Which ever of the three grey parties is in power, the Whitehall mandarins and local public servants are bent on creating a "big brother" society. Given the scandal of lost computer files and Government IT cock-ups, this personal information is not safe in the hands of the bureaucrats who run our schools and security services alike. Stand up for the rights and stop big brother now!
As Terry Thomas, Professor of Criminal Justice Studies at Leeds Metropolitan University has said "A whole generation of children not involved with any criminal behaviour may be growing up thinking fingerprinting is just a 'normal' way of being identified, and innocuous phrases like school 'kiddy-printing' only further minimises what is going on. Children are being inducted into the world of the 'surveillance society' without really knowing what it means."
This practice is the thin end of the wedge in an increasingly intrusive state. Deputy PM Nick Clegg denounced the practice in his "freedom" speech just after the election, committing the Government "to end the scandal of children being fingerprinted at school without their parent’s consent".
However, at the same time the Con Dem coalition has provoked a civil liberties storm after reviving Labour's "Big Brother" plans to track details of every phone call, email and website visit in Britain (Independent 22/10/10).
Which ever of the three grey parties is in power, the Whitehall mandarins and local public servants are bent on creating a "big brother" society. Given the scandal of lost computer files and Government IT cock-ups, this personal information is not safe in the hands of the bureaucrats who run our schools and security services alike. Stand up for the rights and stop big brother now!
Thursday 21 October 2010
Politicians support Tax Avoidance
Yet again we have seen crocodile tears about opposing tax avoidance. The chancellor George Osbourne, whilst casually throwing an additional one million people onto the dole, claimed he would crack down on tax avoidance. But he continues to avoid taxing the real culprits of the recession and increase in public debt.
Mr Osborne, himself apparently supported by a £4m offshore trust, a form of legal tax avoidance, has apparently allowed Vodafone to write off outstanding tax bill of £6bn. According to Johann Hari in the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-a-colder-crueller-country-ndash-for-no-gain-2112069.html) bankers have just awarded themselves £7bn in bonuses for their part in causing the recession.
Nor are Labour politicians free from blame. As Mark Thomas pointed out last year (see him on You Tube) Government buildings sold off under PFI are paying rent to offshore companies paying no tax. These include the Treasury building where George Osborne hatched his plans. It also includes Home Office buildings, hospitals and even the Albert Bridge House tax office. So the HMRC tax collectors, who are paid bonuses for the tax demands they send out (whether or not they are correct), are paying rent to tax avoiders.
This Con Dem budget will push the country back into recession. The job losses will continue into the private sector as sub-contractors and temporary staff are the first to be laid off by local government and the NHS. The overall loss of tax and additional unemployment benefit will cost more than the savings made and I predict that the public deficit will go up, not down, in the next 4 years. Surely it would be so much better to tax the tax avoiders and use the money to invest in new Green jobs, as the Green Party suggested at the general election?
Mr Osborne, himself apparently supported by a £4m offshore trust, a form of legal tax avoidance, has apparently allowed Vodafone to write off outstanding tax bill of £6bn. According to Johann Hari in the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-a-colder-crueller-country-ndash-for-no-gain-2112069.html) bankers have just awarded themselves £7bn in bonuses for their part in causing the recession.
Nor are Labour politicians free from blame. As Mark Thomas pointed out last year (see him on You Tube) Government buildings sold off under PFI are paying rent to offshore companies paying no tax. These include the Treasury building where George Osborne hatched his plans. It also includes Home Office buildings, hospitals and even the Albert Bridge House tax office. So the HMRC tax collectors, who are paid bonuses for the tax demands they send out (whether or not they are correct), are paying rent to tax avoiders.
This Con Dem budget will push the country back into recession. The job losses will continue into the private sector as sub-contractors and temporary staff are the first to be laid off by local government and the NHS. The overall loss of tax and additional unemployment benefit will cost more than the savings made and I predict that the public deficit will go up, not down, in the next 4 years. Surely it would be so much better to tax the tax avoiders and use the money to invest in new Green jobs, as the Green Party suggested at the general election?
Wednesday 13 October 2010
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
There is nothing more shameful than for politicians, only a few months after an election, to renege on an election promise. Abolishing University tuition fees was not only part of the Liberal Democrat manifesto, but it was also a written pledge by every Lib Dem candidate who publicly signed their name to a written undertaking. It was a central part of the Lib Dem claim to fairness, along with opposing Trident and a promise of proportional representation (AV is not PR).
The Lib Dems have now broken all of these promises, but nothing is more shameful than their complete volte-face on tuition fees. Instead of abolishing tuition fees, Vince Cable has announced they could quadruple up to £12,000!
The British Medical Association warned: "Graduates are currently leaving medical school with an estimated £37,000 worth of debt under the present £3,290 annual fee. There is the potential that some students could incur debts up to and beyond £100,000 if fees are set at £10,000 or above by medical schools."
It is no wonder people do not trust politicians, when the Liberal Democrats betray our trust in this way. It is neither liberal nor democratic to lie to us the way the Lib Dems have done.
Compare and contrast Caroline Lucas, the single Green MP, who has already had more impact on the House of Commons than the whole Lib Dem backbench put together. Clive Aslet, editor-at-large of Country Life magazine said, “She appears to be doing the work that might otherwise be done by several dozen politicians.”
The Lib Dems have now broken all of these promises, but nothing is more shameful than their complete volte-face on tuition fees. Instead of abolishing tuition fees, Vince Cable has announced they could quadruple up to £12,000!
The British Medical Association warned: "Graduates are currently leaving medical school with an estimated £37,000 worth of debt under the present £3,290 annual fee. There is the potential that some students could incur debts up to and beyond £100,000 if fees are set at £10,000 or above by medical schools."
It is no wonder people do not trust politicians, when the Liberal Democrats betray our trust in this way. It is neither liberal nor democratic to lie to us the way the Lib Dems have done.
Compare and contrast Caroline Lucas, the single Green MP, who has already had more impact on the House of Commons than the whole Lib Dem backbench put together. Clive Aslet, editor-at-large of Country Life magazine said, “She appears to be doing the work that might otherwise be done by several dozen politicians.”
Thursday 23 September 2010
Liberal Democrats
See Green MP Caroline Lucas talking about the broken promises in the Lib Dem manifesto at:
http://yorkshireandhumber.greenparty.org.uk/region/yorkshireandhumber
I never thought to see the day when Liberals, given their first share in Government in my lifetime, proposed keeping Trident, cutting public services, privatising Royal Mail, voting against proportional representation in voting and continuing the war in Afghanistan. Strange and sad times indeed.
http://yorkshireandhumber.greenparty.org.uk/region/yorkshireandhumber
I never thought to see the day when Liberals, given their first share in Government in my lifetime, proposed keeping Trident, cutting public services, privatising Royal Mail, voting against proportional representation in voting and continuing the war in Afghanistan. Strange and sad times indeed.
Monday 20 September 2010
Allerton Quarry Incinerator
North Yorkshire County Council and York Council propose to build a £900m incinerator to dispose of waste. There will be a series of public consultations, including one at the Catterick Garrison Leisure Centre at 10.00 am on Wednesday 22/9/2010. NYCC have issued what I believe to be a misleading briefing in their propaganda sheet, the NY Times. To redress the balance, I have written what I believe to be relevant facts about this controversial proposal.
1. I understand that this is a commercial venture belonging to Amey Cespa of Spain, but is being funded by NYCC and York Council under a PFI scheme. The Councils, not the Spanish company will therefore be taking the commercial risks. This will saddle North Yorkshire Council taxpayers with 25 years of debt. The minimum total cost to NYCC taxpayers over 25 years is estimated at £1.4 billion at today’s prices, assuming all the financial assumptions are correct.
2. These assumptions include the OVER capacity that has been built into the contract, based on an unrealistic future waste tonnage INCREASE (not decline) and population growth. The contract assumes only 50% recycling is achieved by 2020 (we are nearly there now!). The contract will further financially penalise the councils if the level of waste to feed the incinerator is too LOW! It therefore discourages attempts to recycle above 50% or reduce waste generally. Switzerland, the Netherlands and Austria have national recycling rates of 60% or more.
3. At least half a million jobs would be created in Europe if member states recycled 70% of their waste, according to a Friends of the Earth (FoE) study http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2010/More_Jobs_Less_Waste_Sep2010.pdf. The report comes one week after José Manuel Barroso called for three million new green jobs by 2020. The Allerton Park site will only employ up to 70 staff, with a similar or greater LOSS of jobs likely at landfill sites.
4. The scheme depends on the import of at least 100,000 tonnes of commercial waste per annum to feed the incinerator. There is no guarantee that that amount of commercial waste would be available to Allerton Park, which would be a substantial financial risk to NYCC. There are currently plans for 65 new incinerators to be built in the UK, in addition to the 25 incinerators that already exist in the UK. Overcapacity in the stock of waste incinerators in Germany and Netherlands has led to the import of waste from other countries. Sheffield City Council Planners asked their incinerator operator Veolia to explain why in 2002 Veolia argued that a projected 80,000 tonne per annum shortfall could be filled with commercial waste, when now “it is now being argued that this level of commercial waste is a problem”. RPS replied: “The composition [of] commercial wastes today do not reflect the circumstances which prevailed in 2001”. http://ukwin.org.uk/2008/07/17/did-mcdonalds-give-sheffields-incinerator-indigestion/ ) It is likely that Amey Cespa are equally being over optimistic in their forecasts of commercial waste available.
5. DEFRA on behalf of the Government is reviewing the treatment of waste nationally. Their aim is (I quote): “The Review will look at all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England. Its main aim will be to ensure that we are taking the right steps towards creating a ‘zero waste’ economy, where resources are fully valued, and nothing of value gets thrown away.” This presumably includes being thrown into an incinerator, so the Allerton Park plan seems premature. http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/waste-review/index.htm
6. Professor Paul Connett, a leading environmental campaigner over the last 25 years, has ridiculed the “pathetic” recycling targets set by North Yorkshire County Council and York Council. “It is an out-dated technology with no flexibility and the councils are living in the 19th century if they push ahead with the incinerator plans. It simply should have no place in the 21st century. (Yorkshire Post 13/9/2010). Prof Connett claimed a 75 per cent recycling target is achievable and pointed towards cities such as San Francisco, which have made huge strides in boosting recycling rates. The Californian city hit a 50 per cent recycling rate a decade ago and is now up to 75 per cent and is aiming towards a zero waste policy by 2020.
7. All incinerators produce dioxins that are vented into the atmosphere and are a risk to health. In Sweden, the lowest levels have been measured at 0.1 ng/m3n in Malmö, Sweden, which is equipped with a dry scrubber/fabric filter. This technology is regarded as being the best technology available for municipal waste incinerators, but it is not clear whether this is included in the Allerton proposal. Either way some dioxins will still escape into the atmosphere.
8. Sweden is held up as an advertisement for incineration as 45% of waste is incinerated there. Sweden has a major industry exporting Waste to Energy schemes, often linked to district heating schemes in very cold areas. These industries date back to the 1970s and are increasingly controversial in Sweden, blamed for keeping down the country’s recycling rate, which is less than in other European countries.
9. The proposed siting of the incinerator near Knaresborough is close to a Grade 1 listed building.
10. There are fears that having commissioned an incinerator, recycling rates will plummet, as happened in Nottingham and Sheffield. Sheffield now has to negotiate efforts to improve recycling with the operators of their incinerator. York Green Party have commented “Other Councils such as Milton Keynes and Lancashire have ruled out using incineration in their waste policy. Incineration has proven again and again to be costly, polluting and deeply unpopular – and to undermine waste reduction and recycling. As a method of energy generation it is absurd. It would be far more cost effective to invest in energy conservation and renewables than building inefficient plants to dispose of material we didn’t need to produce in the first place.”
11. Materials produced by the new facility will include methane from the anaerobic slime that will be used to increase Co2 in the atmosphere by burning it to generate power. Also produced will be potentially toxic residue (bottom ash) that will be incorporated into building aggregate for use under your new drive or house. This toxic waste will be transported out via the nearby A1 and will potentially be blown from these lorries into villages adjacent to the A1, such as Brompton on Swale.
12. Workers from North Yorkshire County Council were sent out to remove signs protesting against the Allerton Park plans that had been put up in villages close to the proposed site. According to Mr Drury, the parish clerk for Little Ribston, 18 signs have gone missing in recent weeks. “It seems the council is intent on smothering any dissenting voices about the scheme to make sure that is goes through smoothly. I’d hate to think that it is a foregone conclusion that the incinerator will be built but that is the way it seems,” he said. “No-one who I have spoken to is against the Allerton Park site being used for recycling. But what every person who I have talked to is against is the incinerator.” (Yorkshire Post 03/09/2010).
13. Liberal Democrat groups and Councillors have campaigned against planned incinerators in Dovesdale, Wiltshire, Plymouth, Bedford, Marston Vale, Bardon, Suffolk, Widnes and many more places. Their general election manifesto opposed incinerators unless alternatives such as waste reduction and increased recycling were not possible. Waste reduction and recycling above 50% are not catered for in the Allerton proposal, so York and NYCC Liberal Democrat councillors should oppose this incinerator if they are going to be true to their manifesto commitments. Unfortunately some still need persuading of this.
14. Richard Lane of YRAIN (York Residents Against Incineration) says “It was no surprise that the Waste Management companies consulted all came back with plans for big burners. It’s easy and profitable to build an incinerator – just stack up the rubbish and send it up the chimney for the next 25 years. But we need to do better than this – we need to protect recycling, reduce greenhouse gases, and reduce waste. That is the sustainable route, but unfortunately also the less profitable one. Private operators looking to turn a buck will not do this without political leadership, and this has been sadly lacking.”
15. Further information can be obtained at The North Yorkshire Waste Action Group (NYWAG - http://www.nywag.org website - others include the Tockwith Residents Association, tockwith.net, who fought a long-running campaign against an attempt to build an incinerator near to their village, and the Marton-cum-Grafton village website. There is also an online petition at http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/dont-incinerate-north-yorkshire/sign.html
1. I understand that this is a commercial venture belonging to Amey Cespa of Spain, but is being funded by NYCC and York Council under a PFI scheme. The Councils, not the Spanish company will therefore be taking the commercial risks. This will saddle North Yorkshire Council taxpayers with 25 years of debt. The minimum total cost to NYCC taxpayers over 25 years is estimated at £1.4 billion at today’s prices, assuming all the financial assumptions are correct.
2. These assumptions include the OVER capacity that has been built into the contract, based on an unrealistic future waste tonnage INCREASE (not decline) and population growth. The contract assumes only 50% recycling is achieved by 2020 (we are nearly there now!). The contract will further financially penalise the councils if the level of waste to feed the incinerator is too LOW! It therefore discourages attempts to recycle above 50% or reduce waste generally. Switzerland, the Netherlands and Austria have national recycling rates of 60% or more.
3. At least half a million jobs would be created in Europe if member states recycled 70% of their waste, according to a Friends of the Earth (FoE) study http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2010/More_Jobs_Less_Waste_Sep2010.pdf. The report comes one week after José Manuel Barroso called for three million new green jobs by 2020. The Allerton Park site will only employ up to 70 staff, with a similar or greater LOSS of jobs likely at landfill sites.
4. The scheme depends on the import of at least 100,000 tonnes of commercial waste per annum to feed the incinerator. There is no guarantee that that amount of commercial waste would be available to Allerton Park, which would be a substantial financial risk to NYCC. There are currently plans for 65 new incinerators to be built in the UK, in addition to the 25 incinerators that already exist in the UK. Overcapacity in the stock of waste incinerators in Germany and Netherlands has led to the import of waste from other countries. Sheffield City Council Planners asked their incinerator operator Veolia to explain why in 2002 Veolia argued that a projected 80,000 tonne per annum shortfall could be filled with commercial waste, when now “it is now being argued that this level of commercial waste is a problem”. RPS replied: “The composition [of] commercial wastes today do not reflect the circumstances which prevailed in 2001”. http://ukwin.org.uk/2008/07/17/did-mcdonalds-give-sheffields-incinerator-indigestion/ ) It is likely that Amey Cespa are equally being over optimistic in their forecasts of commercial waste available.
5. DEFRA on behalf of the Government is reviewing the treatment of waste nationally. Their aim is (I quote): “The Review will look at all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England. Its main aim will be to ensure that we are taking the right steps towards creating a ‘zero waste’ economy, where resources are fully valued, and nothing of value gets thrown away.” This presumably includes being thrown into an incinerator, so the Allerton Park plan seems premature. http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/waste-review/index.htm
6. Professor Paul Connett, a leading environmental campaigner over the last 25 years, has ridiculed the “pathetic” recycling targets set by North Yorkshire County Council and York Council. “It is an out-dated technology with no flexibility and the councils are living in the 19th century if they push ahead with the incinerator plans. It simply should have no place in the 21st century. (Yorkshire Post 13/9/2010). Prof Connett claimed a 75 per cent recycling target is achievable and pointed towards cities such as San Francisco, which have made huge strides in boosting recycling rates. The Californian city hit a 50 per cent recycling rate a decade ago and is now up to 75 per cent and is aiming towards a zero waste policy by 2020.
7. All incinerators produce dioxins that are vented into the atmosphere and are a risk to health. In Sweden, the lowest levels have been measured at 0.1 ng/m3n in Malmö, Sweden, which is equipped with a dry scrubber/fabric filter. This technology is regarded as being the best technology available for municipal waste incinerators, but it is not clear whether this is included in the Allerton proposal. Either way some dioxins will still escape into the atmosphere.
8. Sweden is held up as an advertisement for incineration as 45% of waste is incinerated there. Sweden has a major industry exporting Waste to Energy schemes, often linked to district heating schemes in very cold areas. These industries date back to the 1970s and are increasingly controversial in Sweden, blamed for keeping down the country’s recycling rate, which is less than in other European countries.
9. The proposed siting of the incinerator near Knaresborough is close to a Grade 1 listed building.
10. There are fears that having commissioned an incinerator, recycling rates will plummet, as happened in Nottingham and Sheffield. Sheffield now has to negotiate efforts to improve recycling with the operators of their incinerator. York Green Party have commented “Other Councils such as Milton Keynes and Lancashire have ruled out using incineration in their waste policy. Incineration has proven again and again to be costly, polluting and deeply unpopular – and to undermine waste reduction and recycling. As a method of energy generation it is absurd. It would be far more cost effective to invest in energy conservation and renewables than building inefficient plants to dispose of material we didn’t need to produce in the first place.”
11. Materials produced by the new facility will include methane from the anaerobic slime that will be used to increase Co2 in the atmosphere by burning it to generate power. Also produced will be potentially toxic residue (bottom ash) that will be incorporated into building aggregate for use under your new drive or house. This toxic waste will be transported out via the nearby A1 and will potentially be blown from these lorries into villages adjacent to the A1, such as Brompton on Swale.
12. Workers from North Yorkshire County Council were sent out to remove signs protesting against the Allerton Park plans that had been put up in villages close to the proposed site. According to Mr Drury, the parish clerk for Little Ribston, 18 signs have gone missing in recent weeks. “It seems the council is intent on smothering any dissenting voices about the scheme to make sure that is goes through smoothly. I’d hate to think that it is a foregone conclusion that the incinerator will be built but that is the way it seems,” he said. “No-one who I have spoken to is against the Allerton Park site being used for recycling. But what every person who I have talked to is against is the incinerator.” (Yorkshire Post 03/09/2010).
13. Liberal Democrat groups and Councillors have campaigned against planned incinerators in Dovesdale, Wiltshire, Plymouth, Bedford, Marston Vale, Bardon, Suffolk, Widnes and many more places. Their general election manifesto opposed incinerators unless alternatives such as waste reduction and increased recycling were not possible. Waste reduction and recycling above 50% are not catered for in the Allerton proposal, so York and NYCC Liberal Democrat councillors should oppose this incinerator if they are going to be true to their manifesto commitments. Unfortunately some still need persuading of this.
14. Richard Lane of YRAIN (York Residents Against Incineration) says “It was no surprise that the Waste Management companies consulted all came back with plans for big burners. It’s easy and profitable to build an incinerator – just stack up the rubbish and send it up the chimney for the next 25 years. But we need to do better than this – we need to protect recycling, reduce greenhouse gases, and reduce waste. That is the sustainable route, but unfortunately also the less profitable one. Private operators looking to turn a buck will not do this without political leadership, and this has been sadly lacking.”
15. Further information can be obtained at The North Yorkshire Waste Action Group (NYWAG - http://www.nywag.org website - others include the Tockwith Residents Association, tockwith.net, who fought a long-running campaign against an attempt to build an incinerator near to their village, and the Marton-cum-Grafton village website. There is also an online petition at http://www.gopetition.co.uk/petitions/dont-incinerate-north-yorkshire/sign.html
Monday 24 May 2010
Over the Rainbow?
What was more important to the British public: David Cameron winning the general election or Danielle getting the role of Dorothy? As the Green Party candidate for Richmond at the last general election, my feeling is that as contests, there was little to choose between them.
The general election was dominated by TV debates focused on three grey men in suits. The Over the Rainbow TV show focused on twenty pretty girls in gingham, so perhaps was the more interesting! There were similarities in that it was youth that won out over experience in both cases. However, unlike Dorothy, in the general election the contestants were not treated equally. All of the smaller parties were excluded from the main debates, with the Green Party and UKIP particularly disadvantaged. At least the Nationalist Parties had separate debates in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but neither the Green Party or UKIP were invited onto the panels and their vote was squeezed as a result. In my own case the BBC refused to talk to me as candidate for Richmond throughout the election campaign, unlike the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem candidates. My complaint of bias to the BBC Trust goes unanswered after two weeks, contrary to their own rules.
Yes, the Green Party won in Brighton, which was down to an excellent candidate in Caroline Lucas and a lot of hard work over many years. But think how much better those TV debates would have been with the wit and wisdom of a woman like Caroline Lucas to contrast with the sameness of the three grey men in suits? That is something that this coalition has shown us. The difference between the three grey men was in style not substance. Their policies are interchangeable, as is demonstrated by Nick Clegg’s endorsement of the Tories’ Big Society idea. Tory, Liberal and Labour agree on Afghanistan, nuclear weapons, nuclear energy and punishing the public for the mistakes of politicians and banks. To cover up their MPs’ expenses scandal they have set up yet another quango full of over paid bureaucrats.
Why is it important that the smaller parties are heard? Well apart from the democratic principle of a level playing field, sometimes we get things right. For instance, on Afghanistan, the Tory defence secretary Liam Fox is quoting as saying last Friday that Britain was not a “global policeman” and he would like to see British troops return home “as soon as possible”. Well I hope William Hague, Foreign Secretary and the victor of Richmond, was listening. He may then recall that this was exactly what I said to him in the Richmond hustings at our last general election battle in 2005 (Richmond Zetland Centre 29/4/2005). Since then 282 British service personnel have died in Afghanistan and 104 in Iraq, along with thousands of civilians. If the Government and the people had heard the Green Party message then, perhaps those deaths might have been avoided?
The general election was dominated by TV debates focused on three grey men in suits. The Over the Rainbow TV show focused on twenty pretty girls in gingham, so perhaps was the more interesting! There were similarities in that it was youth that won out over experience in both cases. However, unlike Dorothy, in the general election the contestants were not treated equally. All of the smaller parties were excluded from the main debates, with the Green Party and UKIP particularly disadvantaged. At least the Nationalist Parties had separate debates in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but neither the Green Party or UKIP were invited onto the panels and their vote was squeezed as a result. In my own case the BBC refused to talk to me as candidate for Richmond throughout the election campaign, unlike the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem candidates. My complaint of bias to the BBC Trust goes unanswered after two weeks, contrary to their own rules.
Yes, the Green Party won in Brighton, which was down to an excellent candidate in Caroline Lucas and a lot of hard work over many years. But think how much better those TV debates would have been with the wit and wisdom of a woman like Caroline Lucas to contrast with the sameness of the three grey men in suits? That is something that this coalition has shown us. The difference between the three grey men was in style not substance. Their policies are interchangeable, as is demonstrated by Nick Clegg’s endorsement of the Tories’ Big Society idea. Tory, Liberal and Labour agree on Afghanistan, nuclear weapons, nuclear energy and punishing the public for the mistakes of politicians and banks. To cover up their MPs’ expenses scandal they have set up yet another quango full of over paid bureaucrats.
Why is it important that the smaller parties are heard? Well apart from the democratic principle of a level playing field, sometimes we get things right. For instance, on Afghanistan, the Tory defence secretary Liam Fox is quoting as saying last Friday that Britain was not a “global policeman” and he would like to see British troops return home “as soon as possible”. Well I hope William Hague, Foreign Secretary and the victor of Richmond, was listening. He may then recall that this was exactly what I said to him in the Richmond hustings at our last general election battle in 2005 (Richmond Zetland Centre 29/4/2005). Since then 282 British service personnel have died in Afghanistan and 104 in Iraq, along with thousands of civilians. If the Government and the people had heard the Green Party message then, perhaps those deaths might have been avoided?
Monday 10 May 2010
BBC Bias?
Well, the election is over and as we speak, Nick Clegg and David Cameron (and possibly Gordon Brown?) are locked into negotiations as to who will form the Government. This is as it should be as all politics should be about compromise around the common good. No British Government since World War II has had the support of the majority of the British people (in terms of votes) and it is time that democracy, in terms of the will of the majority, be returned to the UK. After all coalitions were common in the UK after the rise of the Labour Party up to and including the war.
We in the Green Party had mixed fortunes. There was the astonishing win by Caroline Lucas to become the first Green MP in Britain and the very first in the world to be elected under a first past the post system. My congratulations go out to Caroline and her Brighton team.
In the rest of the country, however, the Green Party and to be fair ALL the smaller parties were punished by the polarisation of support brought about by the TV debates. Not just the Prime Ministerial debates, all the local and cabinet debates focused just on three grey men in suits from the Westminster parties. In Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales the nationalist parties were given a platform, but in England, TV viewers were told again and again that the race was between Tory, Labour and Liberal Democrat and other voices, including the Green Party were suppressed.
Here in the Richmond constituency, BBC North East steadfastly refused to talk to me as the Green Party candidate for Richmond. How many times did you see the Conservative candidate William Hague on the local news and debate programmes (Look North etc)?
Most blatantly, however, was a report by BBC Radio Tees (repeated on BBC Radio York) on Friday 28th April. I am told that BBC Radio Tees did a feature on the Richmond (Yorks) constituency. I am told that they interviewed the Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat candidates. I am told, but not by the BBC, who did not have the courtesy to inform the Richmond Green Party that the programme was even being broadcast. The BBC editorial guidelines say that the BBC should be impartial in its election coverage. How is it impartial to interview just three out of the four candidates standing in the Richmond constituency? How is it impartial to give dozens of opportunities for other Richmond candidates to voice their views on the BBC during the campaign, but to block all attempts by the Richmond Green Party to get its views across?
Never again must local and national broadcast stations be allowed to manipulate public opinion in the way they did in this election. Never again should such blatant discrimination against the smaller parties be allowed to undermine democracy. Never again will we allow BBC bias to go un-reported. Watch this space!
We in the Green Party had mixed fortunes. There was the astonishing win by Caroline Lucas to become the first Green MP in Britain and the very first in the world to be elected under a first past the post system. My congratulations go out to Caroline and her Brighton team.
In the rest of the country, however, the Green Party and to be fair ALL the smaller parties were punished by the polarisation of support brought about by the TV debates. Not just the Prime Ministerial debates, all the local and cabinet debates focused just on three grey men in suits from the Westminster parties. In Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales the nationalist parties were given a platform, but in England, TV viewers were told again and again that the race was between Tory, Labour and Liberal Democrat and other voices, including the Green Party were suppressed.
Here in the Richmond constituency, BBC North East steadfastly refused to talk to me as the Green Party candidate for Richmond. How many times did you see the Conservative candidate William Hague on the local news and debate programmes (Look North etc)?
Most blatantly, however, was a report by BBC Radio Tees (repeated on BBC Radio York) on Friday 28th April. I am told that BBC Radio Tees did a feature on the Richmond (Yorks) constituency. I am told that they interviewed the Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat candidates. I am told, but not by the BBC, who did not have the courtesy to inform the Richmond Green Party that the programme was even being broadcast. The BBC editorial guidelines say that the BBC should be impartial in its election coverage. How is it impartial to interview just three out of the four candidates standing in the Richmond constituency? How is it impartial to give dozens of opportunities for other Richmond candidates to voice their views on the BBC during the campaign, but to block all attempts by the Richmond Green Party to get its views across?
Never again must local and national broadcast stations be allowed to manipulate public opinion in the way they did in this election. Never again should such blatant discrimination against the smaller parties be allowed to undermine democracy. Never again will we allow BBC bias to go un-reported. Watch this space!
Monday 3 May 2010
Green Grand Tour
Still travelling around the constituency today (Monday). We continue to get a positive response from people in all parts of this, the largest constituency in England. Even got a new Green Party member.
Today’s swing through the Yorkshire Dales National Park included stops at East Witton, Middleham, Leyburn, Bainbridge, Gayle and Hawes. Whilst William Hague continues to make just brief appearances in the constituency, the Green Party is continuing to visit the parts other parties cannot reach.
Previously I have visited most parts of the constituency including Stokesley, Great Ayton, Osmotherley, Northallerton Bedale, Richmond, Catterick, Swaledale and Arkengarthdale and many points in between.
The Liberal Democrat is so committed to Richmond, his election leaflet has a photograph on the front with cars driving on the right hand side of the road, clearly taken on the continent. If you look closely there are other clues too: the driver sitting on the left of the car, the WHITE rear number plate, the number one on the wall that looks like a seven.
As Mr Meredith lives in Brussels, I guess he could not spare the time to visit Richmond for a photograph until the election was called. The likelihood of us seeing much of the Liberal Democrat after the election is remote.
Unlike the Tories and Liberal Democrats, I am fully committed to the Richmond constituency and not focused on my own political career like Messrs Hague and Meredith. As for Labour, well the Green Party got 50% more votes than Labour in the County Council seats we fought last year. For real change, you need the Green Party.
Today’s swing through the Yorkshire Dales National Park included stops at East Witton, Middleham, Leyburn, Bainbridge, Gayle and Hawes. Whilst William Hague continues to make just brief appearances in the constituency, the Green Party is continuing to visit the parts other parties cannot reach.
Previously I have visited most parts of the constituency including Stokesley, Great Ayton, Osmotherley, Northallerton Bedale, Richmond, Catterick, Swaledale and Arkengarthdale and many points in between.
The Liberal Democrat is so committed to Richmond, his election leaflet has a photograph on the front with cars driving on the right hand side of the road, clearly taken on the continent. If you look closely there are other clues too: the driver sitting on the left of the car, the WHITE rear number plate, the number one on the wall that looks like a seven.
As Mr Meredith lives in Brussels, I guess he could not spare the time to visit Richmond for a photograph until the election was called. The likelihood of us seeing much of the Liberal Democrat after the election is remote.
Unlike the Tories and Liberal Democrats, I am fully committed to the Richmond constituency and not focused on my own political career like Messrs Hague and Meredith. As for Labour, well the Green Party got 50% more votes than Labour in the County Council seats we fought last year. For real change, you need the Green Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)