Vote Cock!

Are you feeling the Tory blues? Do New Labour make you turn red? Are the yellows way too mellow? Do the Greens make you queasy and do the BNP and UKIP actually make you spew? Well, have you ever considered writing ‘COCK’ across your European Election ballot paper?

With too many parties not representing what you believe and politicians becoming more distrustful by the day, it is an attractive option not to cast your democratic vote and to throw it into the bin out of a matter of protest.

But have you considered the damage you are doing to society?

Imagine today’s political landscape with New Labour in power and the Tories waiting outside Number 10 with a sledgehammer, the LibDems are far behind, with the Greens and ‘the others’ lurking nearby. You feel that none of these parties represent you, so you refuse to vote, or you feel a party like the Greens does, but you refuse to vote because ‘they are never going to get into power’. Well a refusal to vote is only going to strengthen the New Labour/Tory dominance of government and they will never ever represent you or do things in your interest. Why, I hear you ask.

Look at the situation like this, in this example there are 210 voters in total:

Party A have 100 diehard voters who will always vote for them.

Party B have 80 diehard voters who will always vote for them.

There are 30 voters who don’t know who to vote for, or are thinking of not voting.

Who are the party’s going to target policies towards? That’s right, the 30 voters. If parties already have their diehard voters then they are much more willing to create policies for the other 30 voters to encourage them to vote for them, either to get into power (Party B) or to consolidate power (Party A).

Now if the 30 didn’t vote at all because they didn’t like any of the parties or felt the party they wanted never will get into power then Party A will create policies that benefit their own diehard voters and Party B will have more policies like Party A in order to attract Party A’s voters and get into power. They become the same, and politics/democracy becomes diluted.

Let’s now say for example that Party A and Party B are both right-wing, both still with 100 diehards and 80 diehards respectively. A new party, Party C, comes along who are left-wing, and those 30 turn to Party C because they are different to Party A and B. In an attempt to win back those 30 votes, Party A and B will create a few more left-wing policies in order to turn those 30 towards them, but still keep policies that are right-wing in order to keep their diehards voting for them instead of switching between Parties A and B (because they are the same). There is therefore a lot more choice and parties are becoming more representative.

That is why it is important to vote.

But still you may argue there is no party that represents me!

That maybe true, but did you know that in the UK spoilt ballot papers are still considered as part of the voting turnout. That means if 100 people vote and a Party has 20 votes (diehards or not) that Party will look at winning over the other 80 voters- even if those 80 put in spoilt ballot papers because it is shown that 100 people will vote.

Party’s will only direct policies at those who do vote. Why should they worry about those who don’t vote, especially when things like SCOPA stop you protesting.

So even if there isn’t a party that tickles your fancy still cast your vote, but just make sure across the ballot paper in big bold letters you write ‘THE BNP ARE SICK DISGUSTING RACIST COCKS’

How can i gain the respect of the local community with a dirty moat?

A couple of things strike me about the MP’s expenses ’saga’:

1) What do MP’s actually spend their wages on?

2) Why are leaders of parties and key politicans now coming out and apologising for what has happened? Acting as if this is a disgusting habit they pretend they did not know about that needs to be stopped now. Why were they so quiet before? Is it perhaps because we now know the full extent of what MP’s can claim? What else don’t we know about?

I honestly don’t really care how MP’s waste our money on their own lives, what i do care much more about is the amount of taxpayers money they are throwing away on stupid things like replacing Trident.

Anyway, i say get rid of all this second home nonsense (if you want a second home buy one) and build a huge halls of residence for travelling MP’s to lounge about in instead. Alongside this give MP’s an essential work expenses budget of something like £100 a week.

Good to see though my two local MP’s not claiming any second home allowance at all.

What do they need expenses for anyway? Oh yes sorry, to clean their moats.

Using the word ‘green’ does not make you green

We all know that many companies and politicians like to jump on the populist bandwagon, none more so than when it is about being green; you only have to look at the irony of BP rebranding itself ‘Beyond Petroleum’ to realise this.

And we all know that looking at the government you can see the biggest populists of them all. In the latest budget it was announced that £1billion was to be put into reducing our carbon emissions, with £525million being directed at off-shore wind farms.

This is of no surprise. In Europe Britain has the largest potential energy input from utilising wind energy. The European Wind Energy Association  predict that “developing less than 5% of the North Sea surface area would enable offshore wind to supply roughly one-quarter of the EU’s current electricity needs”.

Forgetting political arguments, wind energy seems like a safe bet to secure Britain’s energy future. Unfortunately, despite the £525million being put into wind energies, it is the politicans who are letting this industry down.

One of the biggest suppliers of wind turbine technology to Britain is Vestas, whose operations in the UK are based on the Isle of Wight. On 29 April 2009, just over a week after the budget announcement, Vestas announced that they “have seen different developments over the last number of months which unfortunately have meant we have to reduce our staff and investments in the Denmark and the UK” they will be duly axing 600 local jobs. 

Vestas’s Chief Executive Ditlev Engel admitted during a press conference that this is down to a “lack of political initiatives”.  He mainly blames the planning process and the lack of support from local politicans for energy from wind development. With this Vestas have “lost our [sic] faith in sufficient demand from the North European markets in the coming periods”. Things have to be serious for Vestas to announce this when you consider the wind speeds around Europe below:

www.offshorewindenergy.org/ca-owee/indexpages/downloads/Brussels01_Resources.pdf

So despite the potential that the North Sea area has for wind energy, despite the promise of how much money the government appears to direct towards energy from wind development, despite the calls for reductions in our carbon emissions, despite the current economic climate that is calling for job protection and despite the need for Britain to sort out it’s energy future, it appears the government, especially local, have betrayed not only the British population, but have also dealt a huge blow to the global fight against climate change. If now was not a perfect time to create jobs, expand what should be a thriving energy industry and fight climate change then i do not know when is.

As is the growing theme of my blog posts, please sign this petition calling on the government to intervene and help, and please spread news of this announcement, more people need to see how it appears we are being betrayed by those pretending to be ‘green’.

More information can be found here.

Applauding a Tory

I never thought I would say this, but I respect and applaud Tory MP David Davis on his resignation from the House of Commons. His reasoning (obviously one of many) for this was to force a by-election in the constituency of Haltemprice and Howden in order to debate the issue of the 42-day terror detention limit.

Maybe Davis is just trying to impose more election woe upon New Labour, but nonetheless, Davis, along with all but one Tory MP opposed the 42-day terror detention expansion. Sadly for the British public, the limit was passed in the Commons, and will now come under attack within the House of Lords.

There is not one reason for the terror detention limit to have to be increased. If the police cannot find enough evidence to charge somebody of a suspected terror incident or conspiracy to commit terror within 28 days then the chances are they never did or never were.

But let us not forget why we should oppose the increase in the detention limit; our civil liberties. British people have been fighting for generations for our rights, and now we are in a age where we are willing to throw them all away without an ounce of fight.

There was a time when the sacrifice of our rights and liberties would be the last straw. However, with large public support for this extension, and the fact that ID Cards are being debated, it seems that any terrorist threat has succeeded. The whole concept of terrorism is to scare people and to therefore control them, and so be it, it has.

I wonder whether these people supporting the extension (and on a larger scale ID Cards), are the same people who feel that it means nothing to be British any more, and that there is a lack of a British identity. Where has the patriotism of the British gone; we will never give up, we keep fighting, and fight for our principles, we will never give in- Churchill will be turning in his grave.

Craig Murray commented at People & Planet’s Shared Planet event in 2007 that MI5 have suggested there are around 2000 terrorist suspects in the UK, however, Murray notes that considering the number of terrorist attacks in the UK, they are perhaps the most inefficient terrorists of all time.

I would also like to point out that there have not been any terror arrests that have required more than the current 28-days. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the need to extend the limit.

Yet we are now at a stage where the limit has been passed – in the Commons at least – and where there is large public support for it. People say this country is going down the pan, they create scapegoats out of ‘foreigners’. I say if it is going down the pan, it is because British people have lost British principles. We no longer have the fight within us to secure our own and others liberties. We would rather throw them all away and let any actual and fictional terrorists win.

The Social Environmentalist

This is a key period for the environmental movement. If it were seen to be supporting the high price of fuel, then it will lose a large majority of its support. However, the higher cost of oil will lead to a fall in demand, essential in the fight against climate change.

Along with the rise in the cost of fuel, there has been a visible public outburst of rage – fuelled by the media – at the proposed increase in car tax for gas guzzling cars in October.

From the viewpoint of an environmentalist in a low income household, there is an obvious conflict; the climate verses being able to support oneself. This conflict is not helped with the possibility of being labelled a hypocrite by fellow environmentalists.

To fully engage the argument, it is important to note that the world oil price will now forever be high. This is down to peak oil supplies. Added to this, no country has been able to locate a viable ‘giant’ oil field for 30 years. We also have to take into account that although the Government are raking it in from high taxes placed upon fuel, it is not the Government who control the overall oil price. High prices are not limited to just this country. Recently, there have been other protests around Europe, including a rather violent riot in Belgium.

The most important issue that needs to be taken into account to help out the poorer members in society, while at the same time fight climate change, is the supply and demand of oil.

Gordon Brown’s recent reaction to the ‘oil crisis’ reaffirms his defunct commitment to the environment. By not offering viable alternatives to the car, and instead attempting to increase the supply of oil – by pleading with North Sea oil suppliers to increase supply – Brown has shown that any serious attempt to reduce our carbon emissions is not on the present Government’s agenda.

Let us not focus entirely on the Government during this period though. Let us also look at the oil suppliers themselves. At the start of this year, Shell announced a record breaking annual profit of £13.9 billion. The shareholders of these companies – that also include BP and ExxonMobil– must be sweating with excitement at the prospect of an even higher payback and increased yearly bonus at the expense of ordinary people who are struggling to put food on their families’ tables.

Now, we can never expect any oil company to show any form of corporate responsibility, especially when it is not possible to boycott their drug – however, consider the possible implications for the company of a 60 million strong petition being delivered to their next shareholders meeting.

Moving back to the issue of Government policy; protesters have commanded that the Government ease the impact of high oil prices by reducing the tax on fuel. The environmentalist in me is outraged at such an idea; we need to be lowing the demand for oil. However on the other side of my shoulder – the low income stricken angel, dependent upon the main income earner being able to drive, is whispering in my ear that the poorer members of society are being severely hit, including myself.

There are measures I believe can ease this situation. As noted, the world oil price shall conceivably never fall again. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the fuel tax should go down to ease pressure. Instead there should be a commitment from the Government that this money will be used for one of two things.

Firstly, there needs to be a huge rise in the investment into all areas of public transport. This includes: increasing the capacity of trains, making buses, coaches and trains more luxurious to make them more appealing, finally, and most importantly, to subside and lower the cost of using buses and trains. It is ludicrous that it is cheaper to go by car than by train in some circumstances.

It is essential that to reduce the number of cars on the road, and reduce the demand for petrol, there needs to be viable and suitable public alternatives.

Secondly, the money made from the rise in the price of fuel should be used to help subsidise essential travellers. These include manual labourers, such as plumbers and electricians, who need either their van or car for transport and to carry tools and materials. In many cases, these manual workers do not get fuel paid for them by their companies, and the fall in wages in these areas mean that it is increasingly difficult to run their transport and to feed their families.

The recent lorry protest demanded the introduction of an essential duty to lower the cost of fuel for truck drivers. Although I do agree with this duty, I do not agree that it should be given to long distance truck drivers. The reason for this is because I believe it is environmentally more effective to move haulage back onto the rail. However, it is naïve to suggest that this would not have dire consequences, as there will be high unemployment among former truck drivers. If significant investment in retraining programmes were implemented however, then it could be possible to manoeuvre these recently unemployed into the rail haulage network, working on transporting huge amounts of resources around the country on late night trains.

These two measures are not going to lower the cost of oil, however, it could ease and assist members of the public who financially need the most help.

This moves me onto the prospect of increased car taxes for those cars that emit higher emissions. As an environmentalist, I fully endorse a rise in car tax for higher polluting cars. However, coming from a working class background, the current proposals are economically destructive for British families.

Groups including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have commented how these would give green taxes a bad name. This is true. Although it is clear that radical action needs to be taken to halt the rate of climate change, it is also counter-productive for the poorer members of society – those whose apathy needs smashing – to be negatively impacted by these taxes.

Many economic, political and social commentators have suggested that the proposition of the tax being implemented on cars going back to 2001 is going to hit the poorest hardest. For example, it is highly unlikely that an average family would had considered how much carbon a new car would emit back in 2002 when they bought it. However, 6 years later, they will be taxed upwards of a hundred pounds a year extra for a condition that would not even be on the specification of a new car in 2002.

Once again, it would be the poorest who are the most vulnerable, and who will be hit hardest.

At the same time, the taxes should be implemented. We cannot give up on our commitment on the environment. These taxes however should only be placed upon cars that are bought from October 2008 onwards.

The risk is that families looking for new cars will purchase used inefficient cars, but at least at the same time it will put added pressure on car manufacturers to improve efficiency on new cars while not hitting those with low incomes who need their car in order to live the most.

There are therefore steps that can be taken by the Government to help those worse off from the rise in oil prices, while at the same time reaffirm their commitment to fighting climate change. However, whether the current or any future Government would dare be radical enough to implement such changes to move us away from this doomed addiction to oil that we have seems highly unlikely.