Andy Roberts

Home › Items tagged with comment-debate

• I posted to distributedresearch.net

  Support wind farms? It would be less controversial to argue for blackouts

  http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/05/30/support-wind-farms-it-would-be-less-controversial-to-argue-for-blackouts

  By rejecting all the means by which renewable electricity can be generated, such as wind farms, tidal barrages, hydro elcric dams etc, the UK has set a very dangerous courseThis article titled “Support wind farms? It would be less controversial to argue for blackouts” was written by George Monbiot, for The Guardian on Monday 30th May 2011 20.00 UTCWhy do those who oppose wind power insist on spoiling their case with gibberish? In his column on Friday, Simon Jenkins claimed that onshore windfarms were being planned “with no concern for cost”. But the only reason for building them is a concern for cost. If it weren’t for this issue, they would be the last option governments would choose – God knows they cause enough trouble.As the government’s Committee on Climate Change reports, large onshore windfarms are “already close to competitive” with burning natural gas, and are likely to get there by 2020. They are the cheapest renewable sources in this country by a long way. Offshore wind costs roughly twice as much, and its costs have been escalating. After attacking the high cost of wind power, Jenkins argued that we should instead invest in “sun and waves”. The committee shows that while the expected price of electricity from onshore wind in 2030 is between 7 and 8.5 pence per kilowatt hour, solar power is expected to come in at between 11 and 25p, and wave between 15 and 31p. Talk about no concern for cost!Incidentally, the cheapest low carbon option, the committee says, is nuclear power, at 5-10p. But, because of public objections, new plants are likely to be confined to existing sites, which means a maximum of about 20 gigawatts (a quarter of our current power capacity). Planning objections also restrict the spread of onshore wind. The only viable means of getting carbon off the grid, the committee suggests, is a mixture of sources: renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage.But those who oppose wind power can’t help themselves. In parliament earlier this month, Glyn Davies, the MP who is leading the fight against windfarms in mid-Wales, insisted that “Welsh windfarms have a load factor of just 19% – the lowest ever recorded” and that “the carbon impact of the development can never be compensated for by any possible carbon benefit”. Rubbish again. The capacity factor for Welsh wind (the amount the turbines produce as a proportion of their idealised output) is 26%.Professor Gareth Harrison of Edinburgh University estimates that the carbon payback time for the wind developments in mid-Wales will be roughly 12 months (all references on my website). Davies, like Jenkins, also claimed that “so much more” could have been done with the same money had it been spent on wave and tidal power, offshore wind and solar photovoltaics. Should MPs not be obliged to do some research before they open their mouths in parliament?Anti-wind campaigners are also highly selective. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, obsessed by windfarms, says nothing about the opencast coalmines ripping south Wales apart. Nor do you hear a word about the destruction of the ecosystems of upland Wales (and England and Scotland) by sheep grazing. These champions of the countryside want to save it from only one threat.For all that, it’s a real one. While the windfarms themselves divide communities, everyone hates the new power lines required to connect them to the grid. Here in mid-Wales, I have yet to meet anyone who will speak up in favour of them. Because they have to march across so much countryside, their visual impact is greater per pound of investment than that of any other technology.Though you could see this issue coming as clearly as the pylons themselves, the green movement is completely unprepared. Greenpeace tells me “we haven’t done any work on pylons”. Hardly anyone seems to be aware of how perilous this situation is: how easily renewable energy could be killed by the power lines issue.This is about to become a national struggle, in which opponents of the new pylons will be cast as heroes. Promising direct action, reminding us of the great battles against the reservoirs supplying England, those who marched against the new lines in Wales last week will put us, unless we act quickly, in a dangerous position. Green activists will be outflanked by green activism. The same battle will then be fought all over the United Kingdom, wherever a new power line is planned.Many of the areas affected by proposals for new lines are either Tory constituencies or Lib Dem seats the Tories will hope to take (all of which are now contestable). It is hard to believe that the Conservative commitment to low-carbon energy could withstand a major rebellion within the party: Tory environmentalism is easily uprooted.The greens need to decide where they stand. The only position that makes sense to me is unequivocally to support the campaign against overhead lines. Where new powerlines are built they must go underground. If they can’t go underground, they shouldn’t be built. If we are not against pylons marching over stunning countryside, what are we for?But here too there’s a problem. Like the windfarms, overhead lines are favoured by the government because of its concern for cost. According to the National Grid, burying the lines connecting the turbines in mid-Wales to the rest of the system would cost 3.2 times as much as putting them on pylons (£562m vs £178m). But how much does that add to the cost of electricity?Calculating this is easy (there’s an explanation on my website) – as long as you know the capital costs of the whole project. But neither the National Grid nor anyone else I’ve spoken to is prepared to hazard a guess about the cost of the rest of the infrastructure, so I can’t yet tell you whether burying the power lines makes onshore wind here more expensive than competing technologies.In fact my efforts to obtain relevant data of all kinds from the government, the National Grid and the wind industry reveal that, like the environment movement, they are completely unprepared for this backlash. Dismayed by the collective failure to address the pylons issue, the campaign against windfarms now confidently tells the same story about this technology as others do about nuclear: the turbines are erected by big, greedy corporations; they are unfairly subsidised by the government; they will cause untold damage to human health. In view of the flack you get for supporting any power technology, I’m beginning to think it would be less controversial to argue in favour of blackouts.So this is where the United Kingdom stands. We cannot keep burning fossil fuels without cooking the biosphere. We don’t like nuclear power. We don’t like onshore wind. We won’t like the costs of the other technologies. We reject all the means by which electricity is generated. Yet no one is volunteering to stop using it.• A fully referenced version of this article can be found on George Monbiot’s website guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogSupport wind farms? It would be less controversial to argue for blackoutsRelated posts:Architects worried by tower blocks and windPbwiki supportWild parakeets seen as a threat in the UK

  

  • Tags:
  • UK
  • politics
  • General
  • climate change
  • countryside
  • Water
  • Wales
  • Comment
  • Comment & debate
  • George Monbiot
  • The Guardian
  • UK news
  • Energy
  • Environment
  • Fossil fuels
  • Article
  • Main section
  • Science
  • Comment is free
  • Powered
  • human health
  • photovoltaic
  • Renewable energy
  • Solar power
  • Wind power
  • carbon emissions
  • Renewable
  • blackouts
  • Carbon capture and storage CCS
  • Coal
  • Glyn Davies
  • planning objections
  • renewable electricity
  • renewable sources
  • Simon Jenkins
  • windfarms

  May 30 2011, 5:41pm | Comments »

• I posted to distributedresearch.net

  Supermarkets kill free markets as well as our communities

  http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/05/03/supermarkets-kill-free-markets-as-well-as-our-communities

  Across the country local shops have been wiped out by supermarkets.

  This article titled “Supermarkets kill free markets as well as our communities” was written by Peter Wilby, for The Guardian on Tuesday 3rd May 2011 20.00 UTC A few weeks ago our last local butcher closed. When we moved to this suburban Essex town 40 years ago, it had six specialist shops selling fresh meat. The last independent greengrocer disappeared nearly two decades ago. Happily, we still have an independent baker close by, and even a fishmonger a brisk 25-minute walk away. But for how long? Across the country the small retailer is being wiped out. In the whole of Britain there are fewer than 1,000 specialist fishmongers, 7,000 butchers and 4,000 greengrocers, and barely 3,000 independent bakeries. In all these categories, the number of specialists has fallen by 90% since the 1950s, and at least 40% in the last decade alone. They have been driven out by supermarkets, which now sell 97% of our food, with four chains accounting for 76%. Next to the motor car, nothing else has so radically changed the look and texture of our environment over the last half-century – creating what the New Economics Foundation calls “clone-town Britain” where every high street has the same shops. Until now politicians have had almost nothing to say about it. However, last Sunday the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, was asked about the “Tesco-isation” of high streets – a subject prompted by two riots in Bristol over a Tesco store – and said: “I think that is an issue, yes, and it is something that we’re looking at.” Hardly a rallying cry, but an encouraging change from the standard political response, endorsed by the Competition Commission in 2008, that consumers like the low prices, range of goods and quality offered by supermarkets. An advance too from Labour’s position in Scotland: in February it helped defeat the SNP minority government’s proposal to impose a “supermarket tax” on retail premises worth £750,000 or more. Even the “good for consumers” defence of the big stores requires scrutiny. Supermarkets may offer mangoes and kiwi fruit as a blessed relief to generations who recall the surly greengrocer grunting “no demand for it” when asked for anything out of the ordinary. But the option to buy locally grown produce is increasingly closed off; many varieties of English fruit disappeared long ago. Supermarkets stock food not for its taste, but for its longevity and appearance. Conventional economists count numbers, assuming that a huge increase in toilet roll colours represents an unqualified gain to the consumer. They neglect more subtle dimensions of choice. The central issue, however, is whether “what the consumer wants” should close down the argument. What people want as consumers may not be what they want as householders, community members, producers, employees or entrepreneurs. The loss of small shops drains a locality’s economic and social capital. Money spent in independent retail outlets tends to stay in the community, providing work for local lawyers and accountants, plumbers and decorators, window cleaners and builders. US research finds that every $100 spent at a local store generates 60% more local economic activity than $100 spent in a chain store down the road. It also finds that, after the arrival of a big supermarket, participation in local charities, churches, campaign groups and even voting declines sharply. As Jane Jacobs argued in The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1960), communities are created by myriad small daily encounters: getting cooking tips from the greengrocer, hearing about a job from the butcher, recommending a good plumber at the bakery, exchanging opinions in the pub. “The sum of such casual, public contact at the local level,” wrote Jacobs, “…is a feeling for the public identity of people, a web of public respect and trust.” Supermarkets minimise human contact in the interests of efficiency and convenience, most recently by introducing self-service lanes for payment. As one critic put it, they “cut the threads that hold an engaged community together”. Such issues should concern the right as much as the left: indeed, the most hard-hitting recent report on supermarkets came from ResPublica, the “red Tory” thinktank, and points out that only 12% of Britons hold business assets – and that, when monopoly goes unchecked and a sector of the economy is in effect closed to new entrants (as the grocery sector largely is), we start to “practise capitalism without capitalists”. Becoming a small retailer once allowed an ordinary working man or woman, and particularly an Asian migrant, to aspire – often after redundancy – to independence, self-reliance and upward social mobility. Moreover, supermarkets have become not only a monopoly, giving consumers a diminishing choice of food outlets, but also a monopsony, giving suppliers little choice of buyers for their produce. They have used this power ruthlessly, forcing down prices and increasingly dictating to suppliers what they produce, where they produce it and how they package it. The casualty rate for small producers, unable to survive on the supermarkets’ terms, is almost as great as for small shops. The effect on wages and working conditions in the food industry is well known, but the effect on what is supposed to be a free market is less often considered. Eastern European regimes, dictating from remote, central offices who could grow how much of what, were once regarded with horror. Even western governments were denounced when they adopted industrial policies to choose “winners” and “losers”. Tesco does that every day, and its suppliers have as little recourse to legal or political redress as a Soviet peasant.

  The supermarkets are classic examples of what has been called the tyranny of small choices. Any rational individual will buy most of his or her food and household goods from a big store because prices are lower, choice greater, quality more consistent, and service speedier. I may have the time and money to tour smaller shops. My neighbour, while recognising he may get something better from a specialist retailer, may judge that it will not be so reliably better (for my parents’ generation, supermarkets were liberators from the risks of mouldy cheddar and maggoty apples) as to justify the extra cost and time. Neither of us will take much account of community cohesion or local employment, still less of the dangers of monopoly and monopsony. This is where we should look to politicians for a larger view. They need not confront supermarkets directly, which clearly terrifies them. But they can partially re-create, and preserve what is left of, the independent retail sector through, for example, tax concessions; a community right to take over or find buyers for threatened businesses; and enhanced powers for local councils to protect retail competitiveness. This is an issue – straddling political and ideological boundaries and putting flesh on the abstractions of communities, big societies and social mobility – that Miliband and the Labour leadership, encouraged by the stirrings in Bristol, should seize.

  guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

  Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogSupermarkets kill free markets as well as our communities

  Related posts:UK Online Communities Tapping into online communities can help councils engage with citizens Free UK Domain with Free Hosting

  

  • Tags:
  • economics
  • UK
  • politics
  • US
  • essex
  • General
  • fruit
  • fish
  • cooking
  • Communities
  • scotland
  • english
  • business
  • market
  • Comment
  • Comment & debate
  • The Guardian
  • UK news
  • Environment
  • Article
  • Main section
  • Campaign
  • Society
  • Comment is free
  • Britain
  • Cameron
  • Retail industry
  • Supermarkets
  • bakery
  • Ed Miliband
  • capitalism
  • high streets
  • Tesco
  • economy
  • Euro
  • consumer
  • bristol
  • SNP
  • butcher
  • fishmonger
  • fishmongers
  • free markets
  • greengrocer
  • Jane Jacobs
  • Local
  • Peter Wilby
  • ResPublica
  • retail premises
  • tesco store
  • Tesco-isation

  May 3 2011, 5:17pm | Comments »

• I posted to distributedresearch.net

  AV referendum: The weapon of choice

  http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/04/11/av-referendum-the-weapon-ofchoice

  The referendum on AV offers little apart from a stick for the public to beat the coalition with, a chance to annoy Nick Clegg.

  This article titled “AV referendum: The weapon of choice” was written by Vernon Bogdanor, for The Guardian on Monday 11th April 2011 21.00 UTC The referendum on the alternative vote is the referendum that no one wants. Before the election Nick Clegg called it “a baby step in the right direction“, the destination being proportional representation. The Conservatives agreed to the referendum only reluctantly as the price for coalition. The AV would probably make little difference in most general elections. A simulation by David Sanders at Essex University suggests that, in 2010, the only difference is that the Liberal Democrats would have won 32 extra seats, 22 at the expense of the Conservatives and 10 at the expense of Labour. By helping the Lib Dems – the second choice of many voters – AV makes hung parliaments more likely. But the effect would probably not be very great. AV would not have transformed the result in any of the 12 postwar elections that yielded large working majorities. But the parliaments of 1951 and 1992 might have been hung, and AV might have given Labour a working majority in the indecisive elections of 1950, 1964, and February and October 1974. AV, then, alters little; and it leaves most voters cold. Yet the issue excites the political class, whose wild and exaggerated claims for and against the system constitute a perfect example of what in the French Fourth Republic was called la politique politicienne, politics for the politicians but not for the people. AV will not, as its advocates suggest, do away with safe seats. It will make no difference in a constituency where an MP wins over 50% of the vote. Since so few seats will change hands, the system is unlikely to make MPs fight for every single vote; nor will it remedy the geographical imbalance of representation that is perhaps the greatest weakness of the first-past-the-post system. It will do nothing to ensure that Tories are better represented in Scotland and the north of England, or Labour better represented in the south. Under AV, an extremist party such as the BNP might gain more first-preference votes, so giving it more legitimacy. That is because a vote for a small party will no longer be a wasted vote. But since only a centrist party, such as the Lib Dems, is likely to secure transfers, the BNP would be unlikely to win any seats. But the no campaign’s claim that AV gives some voters two votes, also made by former foreign secretaries led by Douglas Hurd, is equally absurd. As Jo Swinson, Liberal Democrat MP for East Dunbartonshire, said on last week’s Question Time, if I ask you to buy me a Mars but a Mars is not available and I suggest you buy a Twix instead, I will not receive two bars of chocolate. A transferred vote is not a multiple vote. It is paradoxical that politicians are getting so excited about a marginal change. But the paradox is easily explained. For the consequences of referendums can be very great. The two-to- one yes vote in the 1975 referendum on whether Britain should stay in the European Economic Community, as the EU was then known, marginalised Labour’s anti-European left, beginning the process that led to the SDP breakaway in 1981. The failure of the 1979 devolution referendums led directly to the fall of James Callaghan’s government, paving the way for 18 years of Tory rule. The consequences of the 2011 referendum could be equally great. Whatever the verdict, there will be great strains on the coalition. A no vote will increase Lib Dem grassroots disenchantment. Party members will ask themselves what they have gained by accepting Conservative policies on cuts and tuition fees. There will be pressure to leave the coalition, and the fixed-term parliaments bill means that David Cameron cannot threaten them with a general election. A yes vote will annoy Conservatives, who will claim that Cameron has given the Lib Dems extra seats, making a majority more difficult to achieve. But a yes vote will not end the debate. For many Lib Dems will say AV is but a step on the road to proportional representation, and will use their strengthened representation to press for it. When AV was debated in the Commons in 1931, one MP said the system reminded him of Oscar Wilde’s comment on Whistler, that he had no enemies but was thoroughly disliked by all his friends. A referendum ought to be a weapon by which the people can make decisions for themselves. The poll on AV, by contrast, is a weapon by which the coalition partners can offload on the public the onus of deciding on a system that neither of them wants.

  guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

  Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogAV referendum: The weapon of choice

  Related posts:Will anyone vote for AV in the electoral reform referendum? Lib Dems braced for further setbacks on 5 May after Barnsley humiliation The Libs are not the Dems

  

  • Tags:
  • UK
  • politics
  • David Cameron
  • Nick Clegg
  • Comment
  • Comment & debate
  • The Guardian
  • UK news
  • Article
  • Main section
  • Comment is free
  • coalition
  • Liberal Democrats
  • Conservatives
  • referendum
  • Alternative vote
  • baby step
  • disenchantment
  • Douglas Hurd
  • East Dunbartonshire
  • Electoral reform
  • Fixed-term
  • James Callaghan
  • proportional representation
  • Vernon Bogdanor

  April 11 2011, 5:11pm | Comments »

• I posted to distributedresearch.net

  Nuclear’s green cheerleaders forget Chernobyl at our peril

  http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/04/02/nuclears-green-cheerleaders-forget-chernobyl-at-our-peril

  Pundits who downplay the risks of  nuclear radiation are ignoring the casualties of the past such as Chernobyl. Fukushima‘s core meltdown may be worse due to the plutonium in the mixed oxide fuel rods.

  This article titled “Nuclear’s green cheerleaders forget Chernobyl at our peril” was written by John Vidal, for The Guardian on Friday 1st April 2011 19.00 UTC Every day there are more setbacks to solving the Japanese nuclear crisis and it’s pretty clear that the industry and governments are telling us little; have no idea how long it will take to control; or what the real risk of cumulative contamination may be. The authorities reassure us by saying there is no immediate danger and a few absolutist environmentalists obsessed with nuclear power because of the urgency to limit emissions repeat the industry mantra that only a few people died at Chernobyl – the worst nuclear accident in history. Those who disagree are smeared and put in the same camp as climate change deniers. I prefer the words of Alexey Yablokov, member of the Russian academy of sciences, and adviser to President Gorbachev at the time of Chernobyl: “When you hear ‘no immediate danger’ [from nuclear radiation] then you should run away as far and as fast as you can.” Five years ago I visited the still highly contaminated areas of Ukraine and the Belarus border where much of the radioactive plume from Chernobyl descended on 26 April 1986. I challenge chief scientist John Beddington and environmentalists like George Monbiot or any of the pundits now downplaying the risks of radiation to talk to the doctors, the scientists, the mothers, children and villagers who have been left with the consequences of a major nuclear accident. It was grim. We went from hospital to hospital and from one contaminated village to another. We found deformed and genetically mutated babies in the wards; pitifully sick children in the homes; adolescents with stunted growth and dwarf torsos; foetuses without thighs or fingers and villagers who told us every member of their family was sick. This was 20 years after the accident but we heard of many unusual clusters of people with rare bone cancers. One doctor, in tears, told us that one in three pregnancies in some places was malformed and that she was overwhelmed by people with immune and endocrine system disorders. Others said they still saw caesium and strontium in the breast milk of mothers living far from the areas thought to be most affected, and significant radiation still in the food chain. Villages testified that “the Chernobyl necklace” – thyroid cancer – was so common as to be unremarkable; many showed signs of accelerated ageing. The doctors and scientists who have dealt directly with the catastrophe said that the UN International Atomic Energy Agency’s “official” toll, through its Chernobyl Forum, of 50 dead and perhaps 4,000 eventual fatalities was insulting and grossly simplistic. The Ukrainian Scientific Centre for Radiation, which estimated that infant mortality increased 20 to 30% after the accident, said their data had not been accepted by the UN because it had not been published in a major scientific journal. Konstantin Tatuyan, one of the “liquidators” who had helped clean up the plant, told us that nearly all his colleagues had died or had cancers of one sort or another, but that no one had ever asked him for evidence. There was burning resentment at the way the UN, the industry and ill-informed pundits had played down the catastrophe. While there have been thousands of east European studies into the health effects of radiation from Chernobyl, only a very few have been accepted by the UN, and there have been just a handful of international studies trying to gauge an overall figure. They range from the UN’s Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation study (57 direct deaths and 4,000 cancers expected) to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), who estimated that more than 10,000 people had been affected by thyroid cancer alone and a further 50,000 cases could be expected. Moving up the scale, a 2006 report for Green MEPs suggested up to 60,000 possible deaths; Greenpeace took the evidence of 52 scientists and estimated the deaths and illnesses to be 93,000 terminal cancers already and perhaps 140,000 more in time. Using other data, the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences declared in 2006 that 212,000 people had died as a direct consequence of Chernobyl. At the end of 2006, Yablokov and two colleagues, factoring in the worldwide drop in births and increase in cancers seen after the accident, estimated in a study published in the annals of the New York Academy of Sciences that 985,000 people had so far died and the environment had been devastated. Their findings were met with almost complete silence by the World Health Organisation and the industry. So who can we trust when the estimates swing so wildly? Should we believe the empirical evidence of the doctors; or governments and industrialists backed by their PR companies? So politicised has nuclear energy become, that you can now pick and choose your data, rubbish your opponents, and ignore anything you do not like. The fact is we may never know the truth about Chernobyl because the records are lost, thousands of people from 24 countries who cleaned up the site have dispersed across the vast former Soviet Union, and many people have died. Fukushima is not Chernobyl, but it is potentially worse. It is a multiple reactor catastrophe happening within 150 miles of a metropolis of 30 million people. If it happened at Sellafield, there would be panic in every major city in Britain. We still don’t know the final outcome but to hear experts claiming that nuclear radiation is not that serious, or that this accident proves the need for nuclear power, is nothing short of disgraceful.

  guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

  Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogNuclear’s green cheerleaders forget Chernobyl at our peril

  Related posts:Chernobyl 25 years on: a poisoned landscape Japan may have lost race to save nuclear reactor Q&A: Plutonium detected at Fukushima

  

  • Tags:
  • ukraine
  • world health organisation
  • Hospital
  • food
  • Green
  • Japan
  • japanese
  • earth
  • climate change
  • waste
  • Europe
  • health
  • Government
  • Comment
  • Comment & debate
  • George Monbiot
  • The Guardian
  • Energy
  • Environment
  • John Vidal
  • Article
  • Main section
  • Russia
  • World news
  • International
  • Comment is free
  • climate
  • Environmental
  • industry
  • caesium
  • Nuclear power
  • reactor
  • Chernobyl
  • Fukushima
  • core meltdown
  • nuclear accident
  • New York
  • nuclear crisis
  • fuel rods
  • contaminate
  • Radiation
  • thyroid
  • atomic energy agency
  • international atomic energy
  • Japan disaster
  • Nuclear
  • control
  • danger
  • accident
  • mixed oxide fuel
  • plutonium
  • Euro
  • Nuclear waste
  • Atomic
  • japanese nuclear workers
  • nuclear radiation
  • absolutist
  • Belarus
  • breast milk
  • cancer
  • catastrophe
  • Consequences
  • east European
  • environmentalists
  • groundwater
  • John Beddington
  • mortality
  • nuclear energy
  • president gorbachev
  • Prevention
  • russian academy of sciences
  • sick children
  • strontium
  • stunted growth
  • Tatuyan
  • threat
  • urgency
  • Yablokov

  April 2 2011, 8:30am | Comments »

• I posted to distributedresearch.net

  Libya remembers, we forget: these bombs are not the first

  http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/03/25/libya-remembers-we-forget-these-bombs-are-not-the-first

  To understand the Libyan leader Gaddafi‘s hold on power, we need to delve deeper into the cultural memory of the once colonised country of Libya

  This article titled “Libya remembers, we forget: these bombs are not the first” was written by Mark Mazower, for The Guardian on Friday 25th March 2011 08.30 UTC It’s not on most people’s list of anniversaries to remember but it should be. Almost exactly one hundred years ago, the world’s first aerial bombing campaign took place – in Libya. In September 1911, desperate for an empire of their own, the Italians invaded. The Ottoman backwater had scarcely mattered to the sultans; for years it had been used chiefly as a place of exile for unfortunate political prisoners. But war propelled Libya into the headlines, the Italians’ colonial foray, triggering a chain of events that led inexorably to the first world war. When the airman Giulio Gavotti dropped four grenades from his Taube monoplane on to the enemy outside Tripoli, little damage was done: indeed the practice of priming and then dropping live bombs by hand was nearly as hazardous to the Italian pilots as it was to the Turkish troops below. Nevertheless, a staff officer, Major Giulio Douhet, had seen enough to formulate the arguments that would make him the century’s foremost advocate of war from the skies. A decade later, Douhet argued in his classic study The Command of the Air that the sheer terror induced by mass bombing of civilian targets would shorten conflicts and save lives; outrage was thus misplaced, for total war was humane. The western way of war had been born in the north African desert. Few remembered the Libyan victims. Indeed, the Italians had gone to war assuming the Arab population would greet them as liberators from the Ottoman yoke. By the time they realised their mistake, it was too late, and they were pinned back to the coast. Faced with a popular insurrection, they retaliated through the deliberate destruction of villages, wells and herds with force. Nearly 100,000 people were interned or deported, and thousands died of disease or malnutrition in labour camps. Italian planes once again bombed the country, this time dropping mustard gas in defiance of the 1925 Geneva protocol. Finally, the fascist regime declared that the Libyan provinces were to become an integral part of Italy itself. A stroke of the pen turned the inhabitants into strangers in their own land, paving the way for the foundation of a new Roman empire with Italian farmer colonists. The settlers were still streaming in when the second world war turned the country into a new battlefield, littering the desert with mines that were still impeding oil exploration 20 years later. With Mussolini’s defeat in the second world war, the entire story vanished into oblivion. the way so many other small wars fought by would-be civilisers against “savage races” had done. A new set of Great Powers took over before handing the whole problem of Libya’s future to the United Nations. Italy resurrected itself as a cold war ally of Britain and America. Postwar Italians condemned fascism’s crimes against fellow-Italians, but they forgot about the far worse crimes across the sea. No one else in Europe cared much either But in Libya the long decades of oppression could not be forgotten so easily. The Italians had devastated the old pastoral economy, and depopulated much of the land: the very term Siziliani (many of the settlers had come from Sicily) remained a term of loathing. Memories of anti-colonial resistance helped to legitimise Libya’s new British-backed king, Idris, who as head of the Sanusi order had been a figurehead for the struggle against the Italians. But such memories also helped bolster the 27-year-old Colonel Gaddafi when he accused the king of selling out to latter-day imperialism, toppled him in a coup and set up the republic that he continues to rule to this day. From the very start of the regime, present and past merged as the anti-colonialist Gaddafi ordered British and American air bases to close and kicked out the 20,000 Italians still living in the country, nationalising their property. As his regime became more and more unpopular, so it found new uses in Libya’s history of oppression. Even as it razed the monuments of the Sanusi leadership, now seen by regime propagandists as feudal usurpers of a popular nationalist movement, so it sent researchers into the countryside as part of a vast oral history project to collect memories of the guerrilla war and Italian atrocities. Such moves not only wrapped the regime in the heroic mantle of the anti-Italian jihad, they served geopolitical purposes too. Two years after forcing the Italians to leave, the socialist Gaddafi was inviting Italian corporations back in, turning the former colonial oppressor into Libya’s chief European business partner. And when in 2004 he sought new respectability in Europe, Italy became a crucial ally and history was part of the deal: Berlusconi apologized publicly for Italy’s past crimes, and in return, Gaddafi promised to keep Italy’s unwanted illegal migrants locked up in camps inside Libya. Visiting the country for the signing of the compensation accord in 2009, the ageing colonel posed next to Berlusconi with a photograph prominently pinned to his chest of Omar Mukhtar, a leader of the uprising whom the Italians had hanged in 1931. Buried in the treaty’s small print was Libya’s commitment in effect to divert much of the compensation money it was getting from Rome back into the pocket of Italian firms. It is not only in Libya, of course, that the memory of colonial atrocities has provided rhetorical ammunition for nasty post-colonial regimes. The lesson here however concerns Western amnesia rather than Gaddafi’s exploitation of the past. For now that western planes are in action once again over Libyan skies, this past has become our past too; indeed it always was. The majority of Libyans may hate Gaddafi and wish him gone as quickly as possible. But they will remember what we have forgotten – that these planes are not the first, that there is a long history of overwhelming western might being deployed on north African shores, and that western power generally comes professing good intentions. If the west wishes today to underline the differences that surely exist between its intervention now and earlier ones, a precondition for persuasiveness is to familiarise ourselves with what we have forgotten, to understand why this history does matter despite everything that the Gaddafis of the world do with it, and will matter more and more the longer the regime hangs on.

  guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

  Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogLibya remembers, we forget: these bombs are not the first

  Related posts:Libya uprising continues – live updates Sarkozy election campaign was funded by Libya, claims Gaddafi’s son Libya conflict: war on Gaddafi is personal – and he is unlikely to retreat

  

  • Tags:
  • Europe
  • memories
  • bombing
  • Arc
  • Comment
  • Comment & debate
  • The Guardian
  • Middle East
  • Article
  • Main section
  • Russia
  • Libya
  • Muammar Gaddafi
  • World news
  • Tripoli
  • arab
  • Comment is free
  • regime
  • resistance
  • Geneva
  • north African
  • colonel gaddafi
  • intervention
  • political prisoners
  • battle
  • Italy
  • arab population
  • battlefield
  • British-backed
  • civilian targets
  • colonial
  • country of libya
  • cultural memory
  • deliberate destruction
  • libyan leader
  • Mark Mazower
  • one hundred years
  • ottoman yoke
  • sheer terror
  • turkish troops

  March 25 2011, 7:47am | Comments »

• I posted to distributedresearch.net

  Japan’s horror reveals how thin is the edge we live on

  http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/03/18/japans-horror-reveals-how-thin-is-the-edge-we-live-on

  Climate change may not be responsible for the tsunami, but it is shrinking our margin of safety. It is time to shrink back ourselves

  This article titled “Japan’s horror reveals how thin is the edge we live on” was written by Bill McKibben, for The Guardian on Friday 18th March 2011 21.00 UTC It’s scary to watch the video from Japan, and not just because of the frightening explosions at the Fukushima plant or the unstoppable surge of tsunami-wash through the streets. It’s almost as unnerving to see the aftermath – the square miles of rubble, with boats piled on cars; the completely bare supermarket shelves. Because the one thing we’ve never really imagined is going to the supermarket and finding it empty. What the events reveal is the thinness of the margin on which modernity lives. There’s not a country in the world more modern and civilised than Japan; its building codes and engineering prowess kept its great buildings from collapsing when the much milder quake in Haiti last year flattened everything. But clearly it’s not enough. That thin edge on which we live, and which at most moments we barely notice, provided nowhere near enough buffer against the power of the natural world. We’re steadily narrowing the margin. Global warming didn’t cause the earthquake and tsunami that devastated the Miyagi coast, but global warming daily is shrinking the leeway on which civilisation everywhere depends. Consider: sea levels have begun to rise. We’re seeing record temperatures that depress harvests – the amount of grain per capita on the planet has been falling for years. Because warm air holds more water vapour than cold, the chance of severe flooding keeps going up and in the last year countries from Pakistan to Australia have recently ended up on the wrong side of those odds. Those changes steadily eat away at that safety margin. With less food stored in our warehouses, each harvest becomes critical. With each massive flood, we have to spend more money rebuilding what was there before: there are still as many as 4 million homeless from Pakistan’s floods, which means “development” has given way to “getting a tarp over your head”. Even rich countries face this trouble: Australia cut much of its budget for renewable energy to help pay the recovery bill for soggy Queensland. Warmer temperatures are helping dengue fever spread; treating one case can use up the annual health budget for a dozen people in some Asian nation, meaning that much less for immunisations or nutrition. Just the increasing cost of insurance can be a big drag on economies: a study by Harvard and Swiss Re found that even in rich nations such as the US, larger and more frequent storms could “overwhelm adaptive capacities”, rendering “large areas and sectors uninsurable”. The bottom line was that, “in effect, parts of developed countries would experience developing nation conditions for prolonged periods”. There have always been natural disasters, and there always will be. For 10,000 years the planet has been by and large benign; you could tell where the safe margin for civilisation was because that’s, by definition, where civilisation was built. But if the sea level rises a metre, that margin shrinks considerably: on a beach that slopes in at 1 degree, the sea is now nearly 90 metres nearer. And it’s not just a literal shrinkage – the insecurity that comes with smaller food stocks or more frequent floods also takes a psychological toll: the world seems more cramped because it is more cramped. We can try to deal with this in two ways. One is to attempt to widen it with more technology. If the Earth’s temperature is rising, maybe we could “geoengineer” the planet, tossing sulphur into the atmosphere in an effort to block incoming sunlight. It’s theoretically possible. But researchers warn it could do more harm than good, and maybe this isn’t the week to trust the grandest promises of engineers, not when they’ve all but lost control of the highest technology we’ve ever built, there on the bluff at Fukushima. The other possibility is to try to build down a little: to focus on resilience, on safety. And to do that – here’s the controversial part – instead of focusing on growth. We might decide that the human enterprise (at least in the west) has got big enough, that our appetites need not to grow, but to shrink a little, in order to provide us more margin. What would that mean? Buses and bikes and trains, not SUVs. Local food, with more people on the farm so that muscles replace some of the oil. Having learned that banks are “too big to fail”, we might guess that our food and energy systems fall into that same category. Imagine, for instance, a nation that got most of its power from rooftop solar panels knitted together in a vast distributed grid. It would take investment to get there – we’d have to divert money from other tasks, slowing some kinds of growth, because solar power is currently more expensive than coal power. We might not have constant access to unlimited power at every second of every day. In the end, though, you’d have not only less carbon in the atmosphere, but also a country far less failure-prone. The solar panels on my roof could break tonight – and I’d have a problem if they did – but it wouldn’t ramify into rolling blackouts across the continent (and no one would need to stand in my driveway with a Geiger counter). Such changes wouldn’t make the world safe: climatologists promise us we’ve already put enough carbon out there to raise our planet’s temperature two degrees in the decades to come, which will make for a miserably difficult century. But they also promise that if we don’t stop burning coal and oil, that number will double, and miserable will become impossible. With Japan’s horror still unfolding, there’s nothing to do for the moment except watch, pray, and try to find some small ways to help people caught up in forces beyond their control. But the lesson we should learn, perhaps, is that it’s time to back off a little. Suddenly squat and plain words – “durable”, “stable”, “robust” – sound sweeter to the ear.

  guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

  Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogJapan’s horror reveals how thin is the edge we live on

  Related posts:Cognitive Edge: Hubert’s error Starwatch: The awakening Sun Libya military action: live updates

  

  • Tags:
  • California
  • Japan
  • sea
  • technology
  • climate change
  • temperature
  • Engineering
  • Australia
  • Comment
  • Comment & debate
  • The Guardian
  • Energy
  • Environment
  • Peak oil
  • Article
  • Main section
  • Science
  • World news
  • Comment is free
  • climate
  • atmosphere
  • Natural disasters and extreme weather
  • tsunami
  • Flooding
  • Fukushima
  • Easter Island
  • Japan disaster
  • aftermath
  • Bill McKibben
  • buffer
  • control
  • geoengineer
  • Harvard
  • harvests
  • margin of safety
  • massive flood
  • modernity
  • nutrition
  • Queensland
  • record temperatures
  • resilience
  • sea levels
  • shrinkage
  • supermarket shelves
  • water vapour

  March 18 2011, 5:29pm | Comments »

• I posted to distributedresearch.net

  The fate of the Arabs will be settled in Egypt, not Libya

  http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/03/16/the-fate-of-the-arabs-will-be-settled-in-egypt-not-libya

  Looking to Egypt to build a genuinely revolutionary democratic system, so that all the dominoes in the region including Libya will eventually fall.

  This article titled “The fate of the Arabs will be settled in Egypt, not Libya” was written by Seumas Milne, for The Guardian on Wednesday 16th March 2011 22.00 UTC Barely two months since the triumphant overthrow of the Tunisian dictator that detonated the Arab revolution, a western view is taking hold that it’s already gone horribly wrong. In January and February, TV screens across the world were filled with exhilarating images of hundreds of thousands of peaceful demonstrators, women and men, braving Hosni Mubarak’s goons in Cairo’s Tahrir square while Muslims and Christians stood guard over each other as they prayed. A few weeks on and reports from the region are dominated by the relentless advance of Colonel Gaddafi’s forces across Libya, as one rebel stronghold after another is crushed. Meanwhile Arab dictators are falling over each other to beat and shoot protesters, while Saudi troops have occupied Bahrain to break the popular pressure for an elected government. In Egypt itself, 11 people were killed in sectarian clashes between Christians and Muslims last week and women protesters were assaulted by misogynist thugs in Tahrir Square. Increasingly, US and European politicians and media hawks are insisting it’s all because the west has shamefully failed to intervene militarily in support of the Libyan opposition. The Times on Wednesday blamed Barack Obama for snuffing out a “dawn of hope” by havering over whether to impose a no-fly zone in Libya. But Saudi Arabia’s dangerous quasi-invasion of Bahrain is a reminder that Libya is very far from being the only place where hopes are being stifled. The west’s closest Arab ally, which has declared protest un-Islamic, bans political parties and holds an estimated 8,000 political prisoners, has sent troops to bolster the Bahraini autocracy’s bloody resistance to democratic reform. Underlying the Saudi provocation is a combustible cocktail of sectarian and strategic calculations. Bahrain’s secular opposition to the Sunni ruling family is mainly supported by the island’s Shia majority. The Saudi regime fears both the influence of Iran in a Shia-dominated Bahrain and the infection of its own repressed Shia minority – concentrated in the eastern region, centre of the largest oil reserves in the world. Considering that both Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, home to the United States fifth fleet, depend on American support, the crushing of the Bahraini democracy movement or the underground Saudi opposition should be a good deal easier for the west to fix than the Libyan maelstrom. But neither the US nor its intervention-hungry allies show the slightest sign of using their leverage to help the people of either country decide their own future. Instead, as Bahrain’s security forces tear-gassed and terrorised protesters, the White House merely repeated the mealy-mouthed call it made in the first weeks of the Egyptian revolution for “restraint on all sides”. It’s more than understandable that the Libyan opposition now being ground down by superior firepower should be desperate for outside help. Sympathy for their plight runs deep in the Arab world and beyond. But western military intervention – whether in the form of arms supplies or Britain and France’s favoured no-fly zone – would, as the Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan argues, be “totally counter-productive” and “deepen the problem”. Experience in Iraq and elsewhere suggests it would prolong the war, increase the death toll, lead to demands for escalation and risk dividing the country. It would also be a knife at the heart of the Arab revolution, depriving Libyans and the people of the region of ownership of their own political renaissance. Arab League support for a no-fly zone has little credibility, dominated as it still is by despots anxious to draw the US yet more deeply into the region; while the three Arab countries lined up to join the military effort – Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UAE – are themselves among the main barriers to the process of democratisation that intervention would be supposed to strengthen. Genuinely independent regional backing from, say, Egypt would be another matter, as would Erdogan’s proposal of some sort of negotiated solution: whatever the outcome of the conflict there will be no return of the status quo ante for the Gaddafi regime. In any case, the upheaval now sweeping the Arab world is far bigger than the struggle in Libya – and that process has only just begun. Any idea that all the despots would throw in the towel as quickly as Zin al-Abidine Ben Ali and Mubarak was always a pipedream. They may well be strengthened in their determination to use force by events in Libya. And the divisions of ethnicity, sect and tribe in each society will be ruthlessly exploited by the regimes and their foreign sponsors to try to hold back the tide of change. But across the region people insist they have lost their fear. There is a widespread expectation that the Yemeni dictator, Ali Abdallah Saleh, will be the next to fall – where violently suppressed street protests have been led by a woman, the charismatic human rights campaigner Tawakul Karman, in what is a deeply conservative society.   And where regimes make cosmetic concessions, such as in Jordan, they find they are only fuelling further demands. As the Jordanian Islamist opposition leader, Rohile Gharaibeh, puts it: “Either we achieve democracy under a constitutional monarchy or there will be no monarchy at all”. The key to the future of the region, however, remains Egypt. It is scarcely surprising if elements of the old regime try to provoke social division, or attempts are made to co-opt and infiltrate the youth movements that played the central role in the uprising, or that the army leadership wants to put a lid on street protests and strikes. But the process of change continues. In the past fortnight demonstrators have occupied and closed secret police headquarters, and the Mubarak-appointed prime minister has been dumped – and Egyptians are now preparing to vote on constitutional amendments that would replace army rule with an elected parliament and president within six months. There is a fear among some activists that the revolution may only put a democratic face on the old system. But the political momentum remains powerful. A popular democratic regime in Cairo would have a profound impact on the entire region. Nothing is guaranteed, but all the signs are that sooner or later, the dominoes will fall.

  guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

  Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogThe fate of the Arabs will be settled in Egypt, not Libya

  Related posts:Libya – Gaddafi’s time is running out Sarkozy election campaign was funded by Libya, claims Gaddafi’s son Libya uprising continues – live updates

  

  • Tags:
  • politics
  • Comment
  • Comment & debate
  • The Guardian
  • Middle East
  • Saudi Arabia
  • United States
  • Egypt
  • Hosni Mubarak
  • revolution
  • Article
  • Main section
  • Protest
  • Tahrir Square
  • Arab and Middle East protests
  • Libya
  • World news
  • Tunisia
  • arab
  • Comment is free
  • Bahrain
  • Mubarak
  • Demonstrators
  • activist
  • libyan opposition
  • Seumas Milne
  • colonel gaddafi
  • democratic system
  • democratisation
  • european politicians
  • intervention
  • maelstrom
  • peaceful demonstrators
  • political prisoners
  • relentless advance
  • renaissance
  • Shia-dominated

  March 16 2011, 6:57pm | Comments »

• I posted to distributedresearch.net

  The fallout from the crash of 2008 has only just begun

  http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/03/09/the-fallout-from-the-crash-of-2008-has-only-just-begun

  The world impact of the biggest financial crisis since 1929 has only just got underway. Demand is falling. Talk of recovery is dangerously premature.

  This article titled “The fallout from the crash of 2008 has only just begun” was written by Seumas Milne, for The Guardian on Wednesday 9th March 2011 21.45 UTC To listen to government ministers and boardroom barons, you’d think that the economic crisis that erupted in 2008 was as good as over. Recovery might be weak and choppy, they’d have us believe, but it’s nevertheless under way. Cuts might be painful, they insist, but they’re essential for a rebalanced economy – and anyway they’re all the fault of the previous government. As elsewhere, there is a determined attempt in Britain to restore the economic model so comprehensively discredited in the crash of 2008. But the evidence is piling up that the full impact of the crisis is only starting to make itself felt – and that both the economy and politics will be transformed before it has run its course. In Britain the loyalty to a failed past is most striking in the Tory-led government’s resolute refusal to bring to heel the banks that delivered the economic meltdown. Bankers’ greed might be the object of public revulsion and ritual political handwringing; and the banks’ survival might depend on the greatest public handouts and guarantees in history. But once again, their executives have awarded themselves hundreds of millions of pounds in pay and bonuses, while real wages are being forced down across the workforce. Even Stephen Hester, the chief executive of state-owned RBS, is pocketing £7.7m while failing to carry out the bank’s essential function of boosting lending to credit-squeezed businesses. And instead of directing the banks they own or underwrite to ditch bonuses and drive recovery, George Osborne and his Liberal Democrat lieutenants have in effect cut Labour’s bank levy, slashed corporation tax and signed a toothless agreement that will clearly achieve neither. Given that over half the Conservative party’s funding now comes from bankers, hedge fund managers and private equity moguls, perhaps that’s not so surprising. But, combined with a scale of brutal and counter-productive spending cuts only matched in Europe’s basket cases, the result for the British economy has already been disastrous. Put to one side the arbitrary convention that two successive quarters of economic shrinkage are needed to qualify for a recession. Britain has in fact already had a double dip, as the economy shrank by 0.6% in the last quarter of 2010 – and that’s before the effects of most cuts and tax increases have been felt. Greece and Portugal are the only other European Union countries whose economies declined in the same period. But it has taken the Bank of England governor Mervyn King of all people to nail the endlessly repeated falsehood that the deficit is the result of Labour profligacy – rather than the breakdown of an unregulated and unreformed financial system enthusiastically endorsed by the entire political class. King blamed the bankers for the cuts, and warned of the threat of further crises unless the financial behemoths were brought to book. And it was Richard Lambert, the outgoing head of the employers’ CBI, who took the government to task for absurdly relying on the ruthlessness of its cuts to deliver growth. David Cameron’s response has been to promise more deregulation and blame civil servants for “loading costs on to business”. That will be the theme of this month’s budget. It’s got all the makings of a 1980s revival, complete with the Thatcherite favourites of increased VAT, deep cuts in the poorest areas and mass privatisation. Ministers seem determined to reinstate a neoliberal order that is beyond repair, while the conditions that eventually allowed economic recovery in the 80s after the destruction of 20% of the country’s industrial base and the creation of 3 million unemployed under Margaret Thatcher – including a far more benign international economic environment – are simply not there. The latest slow-motion aftershock of the 2008 crash is being felt in the oil market. The Arab uprisings of recent months have targeted dictatorship and had multiple causes. But the trigger for the Tunisian revolution, which sparked the wider revolt, was economic: rising food prices and unemployment in the IMF poster-boy state, combined with declining workers’ remittances from recession-hit Europe. Now that the upheaval has spread to oil-rich Libya and is echoing across the Gulf kingdoms, oil prices have started to spike. If the Libyan stalemate continues, or the revolution reaches the main oil producing states, the impact of sharply higher prices on global recovery is likely to be dramatic – a boomerang effect of the original crisis, which would further squeeze growth and fuel inflation. Already European and British central bankers are preparing to make a renewed downturn more likely by threatening higher interest rates in response to rising energy and food prices. Add to that the continuing turmoil in the eurozone, and the damage of a new oil shock on a stagnant economy like Britain’s – already bled white by market dogma – could be far-reaching. The aftermath of the crash of 2008 demands a different kind of political economy. If Britain’s coalition government carries on imagining it can cut and deregulate its way out of emerging stagflation, it will fail and its unpopularity deepen. But Labour also has to break with policies that helped generate the crisis in the first place.   David Miliband, the party’s failed leadership contender, this week defended New Labour’s record, arguing that European social democrats need to move away from reliance on high public spending and state power if they are to regain support in an era of economic crisis. But it isn’t public intervention that is behind the failure to invest or lend – it’s the lack of it. And it wasn’t New Labour’s over-regulation of the City that made Britain especially vulnerable to the credit crash. It was the opposite. Right now, publicly owned banks and their cash mountains should be at the heart of an investment programme to propel recovery. But that would mean moving on from an economic model broken by its own excesses. Instead, they’re being fattened for privatisation. Mervyn King expressed surprise last week that the “degree of public anger has not been greater than it has” over the costs of the system’s failure. But as those costs are rammed home, both in Britain and across the world, it will become clearer that the fallout has only just begun.

  guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

  Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogThe fallout from the crash of 2008 has only just begun

  Related posts:Bank of England governor blames spending cuts on bank bailouts Oil price surge risking global recovery, says IEA chief Ferry between Ilfracombe and Swansea, Minehead and Penarth by 2008

  

  • Tags:
  • economics
  • politics
  • economic crisis
  • David Cameron
  • business
  • Banking
  • Comment
  • Comment & debate
  • The Guardian
  • UK news
  • Middle East
  • Oil
  • Article
  • Main section
  • Libya
  • World news
  • Comment is free
  • Privatisation
  • Bank of England
  • Financial crisis
  • george osborne
  • Mervyn King
  • public spending
  • Liberal-Conservative coalition
  • David Miliband
  • economic meltdown
  • economic model
  • Executive pay and bonuses
  • Margaret Thatcher
  • Recession
  • Richard Lambert
  • Seumas Milne
  • stephen hester
  • world impact

  March 9 2011, 5:15pm | Comments »

• I posted to distributedresearch.net

  May Day matters both for solidarity and our souls

  http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/03/05/may-day-matters-both-for-solidarity-and-our-souls

  By all means celebrate St George’s Day as well but keep May Day as a bank holiday

  Bluebells on May Day

  This article titled “May Day matters both for solidarity and our souls” was written by Cole Moreton, for The Guardian on Saturday 5th March 2011 06.00 UTC Workers of Britain, unite! Rise and dance at dawn, or charm a worm out of the ground – or do anything, really, as long as it’s daft. May Day madness is under threat, and it is our patriotic duty to save it. The government wants to move the holiday, to celebrate St George in April or the battle of Trafalgar in October. Business leaders want to extend the tourist season, which is fair enough – but some also say that it would be more patriotic. That’s nonsense. English people don’t feel much affinity for their patron saint, who’s from Palestine anyway. And even the finest tourist officer would struggle to sell Parisians on the idea of coming over in the gloom of autumn for a day that marks the crushing of the French. In contrast, there is no day in the calendar more wonderfully British than May Day. This is the moment when May madness hits and our unique passion for doing eccentric things is seen once more in all its glory. Worms will be charmed, maypoles plaited and the sinister Obby Oss will stalk Padstow. Men and women will dance at daybreak in Dorset, re-enacting imagined fertility rites in or near the dominant part – so to speak – of the hugely well-endowed chalk figure at Cerne Abbas. The May Ball revellers of Oxford will risk their privileged necks jumping from the Magdalen Bridge in evening dress, even as a choir sings. And those are just the headline-making events. Right across the country, May Day is when the British people exercise their right to get outside and do something really silly. “We are eccentric,” I was told by Lesley Prince, a social psychologist and lifelong participant in civil war re-enactments. “It is part of the British national identity.” Of course, most of these “traditional” events are not nearly as long-standing as people claim. The crab apple fair at Egremont in Cumbria goes back to 1267, but the world gurning championships held there – apparently inspired by the sourness of the fruit – is a relatively modern invention. Worm charming in Blackawton, south Devon, appears beguilingly ancient and rustic but actually only started in 1984, when a bored local at the Normandy Arms wondered what happened to grass when you peed on it. He rose from his pint to find out, saw the ground come alive with worms, and a tradition was born. But whether these events are old or new, people love them. The numbers of participants and spectators have soared over the last decade or so. They generate income – people have got to eat hog roast and drink real ale while they do this stuff, obviously – but that’s not really what it’s all about. The point is to celebrate just being alive. Just being us. People on the left tend to be as embarrassed by morris dancing and maypoles as they are by the flag of St George. They would prefer to keep May Day for the workers, and for international solidarity. Which is fair enough, we need as much of that as we can get. But such squeamishness misses the similarity between the two strands of May Day. Both share the same spirit – a desire to resist being ordered about and told what to do. The British people can be a rowdy, bawdy, rebellious, fun-loving, mischief-making lot – when we’re at our best. That spirit has got stronger again in recent years, so that even our old Etonian prime minister must appear to be a man of the people. But moving the May Day bank holiday would be a big blow to that independent spirit, not least because many of the things we like to do just can’t be done in bad weather, which is more likely earlier or later in the year. Those rituals need to stay where they are, and we need to learn to love them, because there is a serious point here. Britishness is changing before our eyes, as ideas and cultures from all over the world remake us. Rather than lament the loss of our old certainties, we can – and must – choose to celebrate the possibilities of new Britishness. That means being open to the new – but it also means being proud of who we really are, which is a daft bunch of eejits. Let the tourism chiefs go charm a few worms, open their eyes and see May Day for what it is: a fabulous – and highly marketable – festival of Great British Eccentricity. We need it, for our souls. And anyway, who’d want to go cheese-rolling in the snow?

  guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

  Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogMay Day matters both for solidarity and our souls

  Related posts:St George’s Day Weather Photography Competition

  

  • Tags:
  • labour
  • politics
  • calendar
  • palestine
  • holiday
  • things to do
  • things to do in london
  • english
  • paris
  • festival
  • march
  • british
  • Bank Holiday
  • Government
  • event
  • Comment
  • Comment & debate
  • The Guardian
  • UK news
  • Main section
  • Society
  • South Devon
  • Comment is free
  • Britain
  • British identity and society
  • british people
  • Cole Moreton
  • Conservatives
  • george s day
  • May Day
  • may madness
  • tourist season

  March 5 2011, 4:30am | Comments »

• I posted to distributedresearch.net

  The Libs are not the Dems

  http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/03/05/the-libs-are-not-the-dems

  Splitting the Lib Dems after coming 6th in the Barnsley byelection. 6th

  This article titled “The Libs are not the Dems” was written by Tim Horton, for The Guardian on Friday 4th March 2011 19.30 UTC It’s perhaps unsurprising that prominent Liberal Democrats have dismissed the party’s woeful byelection result in Barnsley, a fall from 2nd to 6th, as inevitable voter discontent towards a government bravely taking tough decisions. But deep down, they know this isn’t what’s going on. Entering coalition with the Tories has exposed the deep ideological splits within the Lib Dems. And driven by feelings of betrayal, millions of progressive voters will no longer countenance them as a repository for their support. It may yet be possible for the Lib Dems to ride out the storm and regroup again in opposition. But if the future lies in repeated bouts of coalition government, the time may well be nearing when the only tenable option is to split into their liberal and social democratic wings once more. It’s worth asking whether, by the next parliament, they expect to be one party or two. The Liberal-SDP merger made a great deal of sense in the polarisation of the 1980s. But then along came the popular Tony Blair of the 1990s. New Labour fitted smack between these two Lib Dem tribes – more confident in the power of the state than the Liberals, more at ease with market reforms than the SDP. This made the divisions between these two strains of liberal thought hugely significant. Tensions have also been exacerbated by David Cameron’s skilful pitch to liberal voters who do not care for social democracy. It’s not the Lib Dems’ fault this happened. But the understandable desire to sustain themselves as a single entity has led at times to a less-than-honest politics, which is now unravelling fast. A large amount of their 2010 election platform chose to advertise decidedly leftish values – no deep cuts, more equality, a strong welfare state – even though the Liberal camp at the top of the party always wanted to throw its hat in with the Tories. Why people are so angry with the Lib Dems is not because they have had to make policy compromises, but because they seem to have reneged on these key values. Political parties entering coalitions often have to compromise, but tend to be constrained in doing so by a core set of stated principles. Many voters don’t think that happened this time round. That’s also why the Tories have survived relatively unscathed. Yes, they have broken many pre-election promises, but they have broken promises in a way that voters understand is nevertheless entirely consistent with their underlying values. By contrast, fairly or unfairly, voters see the Lib Dems as having gone against their values. And as Gordon Brown found out over the abolition of the 10p tax rate, it can be hard to recover from that. Worse still for the Lib Dems, they chose to sell many of their pre-election positions in absolutist terms. Tuition fees, control orders, nuclear power: all of these, we were told, were morally wrong. This attracted many voters from Labour. But those same voters don’t take well to pragmatic compromise. A Lib Dem split would be painful, but transformative. A liberated Liberal party could develop a coherent agenda to genuinely challenge the Tories on the centre-right. Meanwhile, many social-liberals would like to work constructively with Ed Miliband’s Labour (rather than having to parrot attack lines they don’t agree with). And Labour tribalists must be challenged to work across party boundaries too. Some Lib Dem MPs seem to believe they can continue projecting a dual identity, arguing publicly against welfare cuts at the same time as supporting them in parliament. But the time is soon coming when many in the party will have to choose. Barnsley is famous for its coal mines. This week the Lib Dem canary emerged gasping for life.

  guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

  Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogThe Libs are not the Dems

  Related posts:Lib Dems braced for further setbacks on 5 May after Barnsley humiliation Harriet Harman Next UK Leader Blair to go, now give back the Labour Party

  

  • Tags:
  • politics
  • David Cameron
  • Gordon Brown
  • Nick Clegg
  • Comment
  • Comment & debate
  • The Guardian
  • UK news
  • Article
  • Main section
  • Comment is free
  • coalition
  • Liberal Democrats
  • Barnsley
  • Byelections
  • Ed Miliband
  • Tim Horton
  • Tony Blair

  March 4 2011, 6:16pm | Comments »

• I posted to distributedresearch.net

  April will indeed be cruel, but we don’t have to take it

  http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/02/26/april-will-indeed-be-cruel-but-we-dont-have-to-take-it

  Forthcoming cuts and pain which nobody is really prepared for. Will Wisconsin and Egypt come to Britain?

  This article titled “April will indeed be cruel, but we don’t have to take it” was written by Polly Toynbee, for The Guardian on Saturday 26th February 2011 07.30 UTC Forget snow – every part of the Office for National Statistics report on the economy was bad news: household spending, business investment, services, finance, construction, even previously hopeful manufacturing figures – all revised downwards – plus declining house prices and anything else you can measure. The one shard of hope is that the lunatic tendency on the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee (Andrew Sentance) may be silenced on raising interest rates. Rising inflation is almost entirely beyond British control – oil and commodity prices. While real pay falls for all but bankers and FTSE boardrooms (up 55%), there is no home-grown wage inflation. Imagine the mayhem in raising the cost of mortgages and business borrowing just as hundreds of thousands more lose their jobs. If things are this bad before the serious austerity has begun, what lies ahead? April will indeed be cruel – and frightening as the great £81bn axe falls. This is a real-life economic experiment, one last chance to prove that Herbert Hoover was right after all and Franklin Roosevelt and Keynes wrong. Or that Churchill was right about the gold standard – except these days its equivalent is the deficit. The Treasury’s breezy “don’t care” riposte to the new figures was alarming in tone and content: “It doesn’t change the need to deal with the nation’s credit card – the country is borrowing more this year than is spent on the entire NHS.” That is cheap propaganda, not economics – a sign that Treasury civil servants have become a missionary cadre. We can only hope this bravado disguises anxiety – and a readiness to U-turn if nothing improves. But the “no plan B” chancellor shows no sign of it. Only a month to go. The shock in April will be profound. Ben Page of Ipsos Mori says: “People have no idea how their pay packets will change. Three-quarters expect to be affected, but they don’t know how.” Cameron-supporting papers sound no alarm, and television doesn’t begin to convey the coming severity. People are still foxed by a government whose every word belies its actions – Cameron still pretends the NHS, education and Sure Start are protected, and only public sector fat is cut; private companies will pick up the unemployed, banks are being seriously taxed and a “big society” will burst forth. Add “not” to everything he says and then you see how the cuts fall everywhere while charitable giving drops: 30,000 give-as-you-earn payroll donors just dropped out. A survey this week shows most large companies and 70% of small ones won’t employ public sector staff, no doubt prejudiced by the daily Eric Pickles and Francis Maude anti-public servants hate campaign. It hasn’t begun yet. Library and Sure Start doors begin closing in April. Rising NHS waiting times are hidden by not letting GPs refer. From 31 March, 300,000 public-sector staff and more from the voluntary sector start to be fired. And most families earning over £18,000 will find pay packet cuts in tax credits and national insurance, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Child benefit is frozen for three years – a cut of 10% or more at current inflation. Public employees’ pay is frozen for two years. In April the lowered threshold for the 40% tax band brings another 750,000 earners into the higher rate; anyone on £50,000 loses £500 a year, just as wages fall further behind an inflation they see emblazoned outside every petrol station inflation. By 2015 25% of earners will be on the 40% rate, the IFS reckons, up from 11% (though no doubt pre-election tax giveaways will ease that). How explosive will all this be? Ed Balls recalls the disastrous abolition of the 10p tax rate: it passed parliament with hardly a murmur – but when implemented a year later it went nuclear. Mori’s Ben Page says this is unknown territory: the cuts are so deep that public rage may become burned into the national psyche, even if the economy picks up and even with pre-election tax bribes. “They are now 10 points behind. Thatcher, hated for her cuts, was only saved by war and a disastrous opposition.” However, Cameron is still popular and the Tory vote has not dropped: so far Labour scores only at Lib Dem expense. But Page points out that, for the first time, support for cutting the deficit has dipped below 50%: he expects it to fall fast after April. What would you do? That’s the challenge for all critics of the cuts. The most important answer is: not this. If this is the cure then the medicine is more lethal than the disease, economically and socially. Take soaring 16 to 24-year-old unemployment, nearly a million not learning or working. That’s 15% before either the future jobs fund or education maintenance allowance has been axed. Here is the great social deficit, a jobless depressed generation, phenomenally expensive and almost impossible to rescue later. Take away the wiped-out youth services offering help. Take away the Sure Starts, the breakfast and homework clubs, leaving children unhelped until too late. That is the permanent human deficit, more damaging and intractable than fiscal debt, a cost uncounted by blinkered economists. What would you do? Not sit by while Bob Diamond takes a £9m bonus and corporations avoid billions in tax. Make sure everyone really is in it together: sharing pain fairly matters even more than sharing good times well. Be open about who earns what: these cuts fall hardest on many of the poorest. Ed Balls rightly posits extending the 50p tax band down to £100,000, to people like me who will pay relatively little extra. Cuts, yes some, but fewer slower, letting growth over time take the strain. Invest in the infrastructure the CBI calls for and reassure markets by having business onside. Build superfast broadband, railways, green energy, housing, whatever kickstarts recovery. Above all, give back the abolished job guarantee to every young person. What can you do? Last Saturday, I was at UK Uncut’s sit-in at Barclays: many more should join this Saturday’s RBS events – see http://www.ukuncut.org.uk. Enjoy their witty symbolism: taxpayers rescued the banks with a trillion pounds, so until banks are fairly taxed turn them into the libraries, classrooms and swimming pools they caused to be shut down. The Robin Hood campaign shows how taxing 0.05% on every transaction yields £20bn, enough to stop all NHS cuts. A ComRes poll finds 75% of Tory voters want bank bonuses clawed back. The government should expect a turn in the tide after April brings the worst of what the banks have done to everyone.

  guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

  Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogApril will indeed be cruel, but we don’t have to take it

  Related posts:UK Uncut protesters target Barclays over tax avoidance Those Wisconsin unions Budget Deficit

  

  • Tags:
  • economics
  • labour
  • UK
  • politics
  • Education
  • House
  • England
  • television
  • business
  • Comment
  • Comment & debate
  • Economic policy
  • Tax
  • The Guardian
  • UK news
  • Egypt
  • Article
  • Main section
  • Barclays
  • Bob Diamond
  • Protesters
  • UK Uncut
  • Society
  • Wisconsin
  • Comment is free
  • austerity
  • Ben Page
  • Britain
  • Cameron
  • chancellor
  • Economic growth GDP
  • Ed Balls
  • Eric Pickles
  • Franklin Roosevelt
  • inflation
  • interest
  • Keynes
  • pain
  • Polly Toynbee
  • propaganda
  • Public finance
  • Public sector cuts
  • Public services policy
  • rage
  • tendency
  • Thatcher

  February 26 2011, 2:18am | Comments »

• I posted to distributedresearch.net

  To us, it’s an obscure shift of tax law. To the City, it’s the heist of the century

  http://distributedresearch.net/blog/2011/02/07/to-us-its-an-obscure-shift-of-tax-law-to-the-city-its-the-heist-of-the-century

  If enough people understood the implications of David Cameron’s tax reforms in the UK we would soon be seeing his ‘Big Society’ Egyptian style. The Guardian published a revealing analysis in yesterday’s paper – reproduced in its entirety, below – by George Monbiot With the help of senior tax expert sources, Monbiot explains exactly how Cameron’s reforms will bring about a massive shift of wealth out of the UK economy and into the hands of a few wealthy big business owners and bankers, the people who largely helped to cause the crisis the government would claim necessitates such a “cure”. The Guardian’s report is published here with permission via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

  This article titled “To us, it’s an obscure shift of tax law. To the City, it’s the heist of the century” was written by George Monbiot, for The Guardian on Monday 7th February 2011 22.01 UTC ‘I would love to see tax reductions,” David Cameron told the Sunday Telegraph at the weekend, “but when you’re borrowing 11% of your GDP, it’s not possible to make significant net tax cuts. It just isn’t.” Oh no? Then how come he’s planning the biggest and crudest corporate tax cut in living memory? If you’ve heard nothing of it, you’re in good company. The obscure adjustments the government is planning to the tax acts of 1988 and 2009 have been missed by almost everyone – and are, anyway, almost impossible to understand without expert help. But as soon as you grasp the implications, you realise that a kind of corporate coup d’etat is taking place. Like the dismantling of the NHS and the sale of public forests, no one voted for this measure, as it wasn’t in the manifestos. While Cameron insists that he occupies the centre ground of British politics, that he shares our burdens and feels our pain, he has quietly been plotting with banks and businesses to engineer the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle to the ultra-rich that this country has seen in a century. The latest heist has been explained to me by the former tax inspector, now a Private Eye journalist, Richard Brooks and current senior tax staff who can’t be named. Here’s how it works. At the moment tax law ensures that companies based here, with branches in other countries, don’t get taxed twice on the same money. They have to pay only the difference between our rate and that of the other country. If, for example, Dirty Oil plc pays 10% corporation tax on its profits in Oblivia, then shifts the money over here, it should pay a further 18% in the UK, to match our rate of 28%. But under the new proposals, companies will pay nothing at all in this country on money made by their foreign branches. Foreign means anywhere. If these proposals go ahead, the UK will be only the second country in the world to allow money that has passed through tax havens to remain untaxed when it gets here. The other is Switzerland. The exemption applies solely to “large and medium companies”: it is not available for smaller firms. The government says it expects “large financial services companies to make the greatest use of the exemption regime”. The main beneficiaries, in other words, will be the banks. But that’s not the end of it. While big business will be exempt from tax on its foreign branch earnings, it will, amazingly, still be able to claim the expense of funding its foreign branches against tax it pays in the UK. No other country does this. The new measures will, as we already know, accompany a rapid reduction in the official rate of corporation tax: from 28% to 24% by 2014. This, a Treasury minister has boasted, will be the lowest rate “of any major western economy”. By the time this government is done, we’ll be lucky if the banks and corporations pay anything at all. In the Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron said: “What I want is tax revenue from the banks into the exchequer, so we can help rebuild this economy.” He’s doing just the opposite. These measures will drain not only wealth but also jobs from the UK. The new legislation will create a powerful incentive to shift business out of this country and into nations with lower corporate tax rates. Any UK business that doesn’t outsource its staff or funnel its earnings through a tax haven will find itself with an extra competitive disadvantage. The new rules also threaten to degrade the tax base everywhere, as companies with headquarters in other countries will demand similar measures from their own governments. So how did this happen? You don’t have to look far to find out. Almost all the members of the seven committees the government set up “to provide strategic oversight of the development of corporate tax policy” are corporate executives. Among them are representatives of Vodafone, Tesco, BP, British American Tobacco and several of the major banks: HSBC, Santander, Standard Chartered, Citigroup, Schroders, RBS and Barclays. I used to think of such processes as regulatory capture: government agencies being taken over by the companies they were supposed to restrain. But I’ve just read Nicholas Shaxson’s Treasure Islands – perhaps the most important book published in the UK so far this year – and now I’m not so sure. Shaxson shows how the world’s tax havens have not, as the OECD claims, been eliminated, but legitimised; how the City of London is itself a giant tax haven, which passes much of its business through its subsidiary havens in British dependencies, overseas territories and former colonies; how its operations mesh with and are often indistinguishable from the laundering of the proceeds of crime; and how the Corporation of the City of London in effect dictates to the government, while remaining exempt from democratic control. If Hosni Mubarak has passed his alleged $70bn through British banks, the Egyptians won’t see a piastre of it. Reading Treasure Islands, I have realised that injustice of the kind described in this column is no perversion of the system; it is the system. Tony Blair came to power after assuring the City of his benign intentions. He then deregulated it and cut its taxes. Cameron didn’t have to assure it of anything: his party exists to turn its demands into public policy. Our ministers are not public servants. They work for the people who fund their parties, run the banks and own the newspapers, shielding them from their obligations to society, insulating them from democratic challenge. Our political system protects and enriches a fantastically wealthy elite, much of whose money is, as a result of their interesting tax and transfer arrangements, in effect stolen from poorer countries, and poorer citizens of their own countries. Ours is a semi-criminal money-laundering economy, legitimised by the pomp of the lord mayor’s show and multiple layers of defence in government. Politically irrelevant, economically invisible, the rest of us inhabit the margins of the system. Governments ensure that we are thrown enough scraps to keep us quiet, while the ultra-rich get on with the serious business of looting the global economy and crushing attempts to hold them to account. And this government? It has learned the lesson that Thatcher never grasped. If you want to turn this country into another Mexico, where the ruling elite wallows in unimaginable, state-facilitated wealth while the rest can go to hell, you don’t declare war on society, you don’t lambast single mothers or refuse to apologise for Bloody Sunday. You assuage, reassure, conciliate, emote. Then you shaft us. • A fully referenced version of this article can be found on George Monbiot’s website

  guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

  Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blogTo us, it’s an obscure shift of tax law. To the City, it’s the heist of the century

  Related posts:Flux article on Dopplr shift Free UK Domain with Free Hosting Budget Deficit

  

  • Tags:
  • economics
  • money
  • UK
  • politics
  • Manifesto
  • David Cameron
  • business
  • Government
  • city
  • Banking
  • Comment
  • Comment & debate
  • Corporate governance
  • Corporate social responsibility
  • Economic policy
  • George Monbiot
  • Private Eye
  • Richard Brooks
  • Tax
  • Tax avoidance
  • The Guardian
  • UK news

  February 7 2011, 5:17pm | Comments »

1

Visit Andy Roberts Music sites

For Andy Roberts music online with free downloads, mp3player widgets and further jumping off points please visit the external links below:

• Weekly Podcast
• ReverbNation
• Last.fm
• Andy Roberts Podcast on iTunes

Get Andy Roberts Sampler CD

The Andy Roberts Sampler CD has four tracks including Gernika. Available from Havering Folk Club on Wednesdays or from Andy Roberts Sampler CD page.

Listen Right here Right Now:

Andy Roberts Photos

More than 3,000 pictures in sets imported from Flickr here on

• Andy Roberts Photo Blog

London Theatre Breaks

Andy Roberts is an editor writer at:

• London Theatre Breaks

Browse via Popular Tags here

• Music
• Andy Roberts
• London
• Article
• The Guardian
• Havering Folk Club
• News
• podcast
• spain
• UK
• status
• theatre
• Main section
• andyroberts
• General
• breaks
• politics
• World news
• gardens
• andy
• roberts
• folk
• song
• kew
• wanstead
• People
• UK news
• thames
• 2008
• video
• park
• ustream
• river
• Andy Roberts Music
• twitter
• business
• flats
• richmond
• culture
• guitar
• youtube
• cover
• original
• Environment
• economics
• 2010
• Blogposts
• The
• loudon wainwright

Search