Wednesday - August 10, 2005

Reforming the House of Lords 


94 years ago today, the Parliament Act received Royal Assent. In it, the present House of Lords was established as an interim measure until a democratically accountable and mainly elected second chamber could be set up. However, 94 years later, we are still waiting for this democratic deficit to be corrected, and the original hereditary body has now given way to a largely appointed chamber that is neither democratic nor accountable, and dangerously close to becoming a rubber-stamping body for the government of the day, as opposed to the effective and informed scrutiniser of legislation that was originally intended.

Why should this concern us? Because it directly affects the character and quality of our democracy, the way our country is governed, and the effectiveness of laws that affect our daily lives and those of generations to come. This blog is part of a wider effort to draw attention to this issue, and is dedicated to the late Robin Cook MP, who was a passionate and eloquent advocate for House of Lords reform, and whose voice will be sorely missed. 
In the early years of the present Labour government (as well as several of the latter ones), watching legislation bounce back and forward between the House of Commons and the House of Lords was a popular, if not entirely captivating, activity. It seemed that whatever the government thought to be a really good idea, the Lords thought was a terrible one, and sent the legislation back to the Commons to see if it could knock a few more lumps out of it or force the government into a humiliating ‘U-turn’. Increasingly, the government became irritated with all this political ping-ponging of its legislative agenda between the two Houses and began to flex its own constitutional muscles by invoking the Parliament Act to force the Lords to submit to its overriding democratic mandate, in some cases, such as the recent Hunting Bill, causing an earlier and inferior version of the legislation to pass into statute.

The other, more radical solution, was of course to reform the House of Lords itself, but after having had its fingers burnt with other constitutional reforms (Scottish and Welsh devolution, as well as the recently abandoned plans for English regional government), the government elected to press ahead with its plans and simply replaced the majority of unelected hereditary peers with a bevy of unelected appointed ones. As in 1911, this was carried out with the proviso that it was a ‘temporary’ measure until a wider consensus on the future of the second chamber could be reached. However, but the government swiftly lost its appetite for reform, and we are now left with a temporary fix of a temporary fix instead of the credible and effective revising chamber that is required by a modern liberal democracy.

Of course, the present state of affairs is actually rather convenient for the government. Now that the inbuilt Conservative bias has been removed with the abolition of hereditary peers, it is a lot easier to force through legislation the Lords that might have proved troublesome in earlier times. More seriously, the legitimacy of the second chamber has been undermined, meaning that it is less able to perform its proper function, which is to scrutinise and revise proposed legislation. Although it is not the Lords’ job to hold the government to account—that's what the House of Commons is for, although therein lies another story—it is supposed to act as a safeguard against poorly drafted and bad legislation, a job which is as important today as it ever was. Most observers agree that the only way to achieve this is to have a partly or wholly elected second chamber, which would restore the legitimacy of this important constitutional body, provide a mechanism for public accountability (if you don't like them, then you can get rid of them next time round), and ensure that it accurately reflects the political make-up of the country as a whole—doesn't sound like much to ask, really, does it?

So what can we do about it? Well, there is a group of senior MPs, including Ken Clarke and the late Robin Cook, who have published a Second Chamber of Parliament Bill that commands widespread support—indeed, some might say consensus. However, like the late Roy Jenkins' recommendations for introducing proportional representation into the UK electoral system, it's never going to happen unless people like you and I start making a fuss about it and ask—no, demand—that government lives up to its promises. Is it really credible at the beginning of the 21st century that the oldest surviving democracy doesn't have its own democratically accountable body for scrutinising and revising legislation? If the present situation continues for much longer then we will certainly pay the price in terms of increasing government arrogance, abuse of power, and poor quality legislation, which has a detrimental effect on us all, not to mention the nature of society as a whole.

Like all democrats, as soon as the government get wind of the fact that sufficient numbers of people actually want a democratically elected second chamber as part of their system of government, then they will be falling over themselves to introduce it—and no doubt claim that the whole thing was their own idea in the first place. In the meantime, may I humbly suggest that you consider writing to your MP to urge them to support the proposed Bill, adding your name to the Elect the Lords web site, supporting a group such as Charter 88, who also campaign on a number of other democratic and constitutional issues, or simply passing on this information to others in order to spread the word and generate support for this much needed reform.

Thanks for reading this blog. Here are some more: electthelords. 

Posted at 08:55 AM       

Monday - May 16, 2005

Economic activism 


Here are a list of companies that I'm currently boycotting, along with the reasons why. I firmly believe that by taking a little more care over how we spend our hard-earned pounds and pennies we can help to eradicate the unacceptable face of capitalism. The companies listed below are in no particular order, my current top ten corporate targets, but perhaps you have some of your own I could add? If so, I'd love to hear about them. 
1. Starbucks pays its coffee producers an absolute pittance and yet charges up to £2 for a cup of the black stuff. Much as I like their coffee shops, I won't be going back to Starbucks until they start stocking Fairtrade coffee.

2. Walkers crisps is one of the largest donors to the US Republican party (that's George Bush Inc. to you and I) and so I'm saying no to their crunchy snacks, thanks very much.

3. Kimberly Clarke, the company that manufactures Kleenex tissue paper, is responsible for clear cutting vast areas of ancient forests in Canada, aggravating global warming and destroying plant and wildlife.

4. Nestlé, for all the usual reasons.

5. McDonalds hamburgers are repulsive excuses for nutrition that should probably carry a government health warning as they can do some serious damage your liver. The company has also been involved in cutting down tropical rainforests and trying to suppress protests against it.

6. Esso/Exxon denies that global warming has anything to do with burning fossil fuels and is a major donor to George Bush and the Republican Party. Although I am no longer technically boycotting Esso as my car is now off the road and so I don't have any reason to buy petrol any more, but I am including them here anyway.

7. Microsoft's anti-competitive practices have landed them in court many times, and no doubt will continue to do so until they clean up their act. Their software is buggy, overpriced and positively user hostile—I mean, who the hell thought up that irritating little paperclip icon anyway? I'll stick to my Mac, thank you very much.

8. Coca-Cola is just overpriced fizzy water in my opinion, and the company that makes it is apparently hellbent on brainwashing the entire world into buying into their product as some kind of ‘lifestyle accessory’. You can use it to clean rusty old nails, but I wouldn't put it through my system if I were you. It's nasty.

9. Nike are known to use sweatshop labour, and again are overpriced with very little of that money ever seeing its way back to the workers. Is it really worth paying £100+ for a pair of running shoes?

10. Iceland. No, not the frozen food company, the entire country. Although it's one place I would dearly love to visit, I have signed a pledge only to do so when they decide to stop hunting whales to show that the economic benefits of this inhumane practice is more than outweighed by the cost of lost tourism, which I fully intend to honour if the Icelandic government changes its position. 

Posted at 02:19 PM       

Sunday - May 15, 2005

Scotland, Ireland, England, Wales, Great Britain, the United Kingdom and Europe: a beginner's guide 


As an expatriate Scot, one thing that is guaranteed to wind me up is when people say English when they mean British, British when they mean English, Great Britain when they mean the UK, and talk about Europe as if it were somewhere else rather than part of the very same continent. Whilst I can understand why foreign visitors may sometimes be confused by or unfamiliar with the bizarre and over-complicated arrangements that pass for a constitution over here, British citizens and permanent residents of the UK have no such excuse, and should at least make the effort to learn about the political and geographical make-up of the country they live in.

It is particularly irritating when respected institutions, such as the BBC, who really ought to know better, express their nationalistic bias by congratulating ‘British’ athletes who just happen to come from Scotland, Ireland or Wales on their international achievements, whilst branding the very same individuals as Scottish, Irish or Welsh as soon as they fail to win any medals. Conversely, ‘English’ athletes are praised for their successes, only to miraculously become ‘British’ whenever their success starts to wane, which is just one example of the confusion, not to say downright offence that is caused when people are unaware of the meaning of the terms they are using.

In order to avoid further inexcusable gaffes and inaccuracy in future, a little more education on the composition of the British state is obviously in order and so, in an effort to shed some much needed light on the subject, here is my attempt to put the whole confusing mess to bed once and for all. 
Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales

These are the individual countries, nations, or ‘states’ if you will (although we don't actually call them that) of the United Kingdom. For historical reasons, each has its own slightly peculiar constitutional arrangements, such as a devolved parliament in Scotland, and elected assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland (the latter is currently inoperative due to ongoing political wrangling). English regions were to be given similar democratic representation, but the plan was cancelled due to insufficient consultation on the powers that such regional bodies should have, and general lack of interest.

The relevant parliament or assembly typically has responsibility for local matters, such as education, health, policing, etc., whilst national issues, such as economic management, defence, and so on are handled by the main Houses of Parliament in London. So far as I'm aware, Scotland is unique in having its own distinct legal and education system, whilst the others fall under the jurisdiction of English law, which applies throughout the rest of the UK (I may be wrong about Northern Ireland here, and so I would be glad if anyone else can advise either way).

It almost goes without saying (but I am going to say it anyway because the point obviously still hasn't sunk in) that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not part of England any more than England is part of the People's Democratic Republic of China, despite what certain unnamed officials at the UK passport office may think. Each of these countries is, however, part of the UK, which is the sovereign political body in this part of the world, and has its own national government, army, navy, monarchy, and so on—something that the rest of the world has become acutely aware of due to recent military escapades in Iraq and elsewhere, upon which I will pass no further comment except to say that they were a grave mistake.

Great Britain

Put simply, Great Britain—or Britain, for short—is the three countries of the mainland put together, i.e. Scotland, England and Wales, but does not include Northern Ireland (see below). This oft neglected fact means that ‘Britain’ is not synonymous with ‘the UK’, even though many (and possibly most) people use the terms as such. No doubt this would wind the Northern Irish people up considerably if they were not so busy being wound up about other considerably more important matters, but either way is probably something that they could do without, and so something that people should be aware of.

Northern Ireland, incidentally, is not to be confused with The Republic of Ireland—or Ireland, for short—which is an entirely separate country politically, even though it is part of the same island (note the difference in spelling) geographically, and not part of the UK or Great Britain. This simple and still heavily contested fact has been the cause of huge untold suffering, misery and hostility, and has widely been regarded as a bad move. (I am noticing a pattern emerging here, but not wishing to dwell upon it, shall continue to press on regardless.)

The United Kingdom

As has already been mentioned, the four countries of the British Isles (that's Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales for the mnemonically challenged) are collectively known as ‘the United Kingdom’—united because they are all together, and kingdom because we have a single monarch who acts as titular head of state, devolving all political power to the elected government, as represented by the Prime Minister. This makes our Queen the British equivalent of other nations' Presidents—no matter how Mr Blair would like to think of himself.

Oddly enough, the people of the UK are known as ‘British citizens’, even when they hail from Northern Ireland, which is technically not part of Great Britain per se, as noted above. This is presumably another historical anachronism that is compounded with the general clumsiness and unfeasibility of saying ‘United Kingdomish’, which is clearly too silly, and so individuals will typically term themselves as British, Northern Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh, respectively.

It should also be noted that whilst it is open to all UK citizens to call themselves British, it is generally only the English who actually do so, as the citizens of the other three nations tend to prefer to be more specific about their origins and nationality, and so tend to use the terms ‘Scottish’, ‘Welsh’ and ‘Northern Irish’ instead (although I am not drawing any conclusions from this matter whatsoever for fear of initiating further hostilities, of which there are quite enough in the world already, as has previously been noted). This tendency is the source of the unfortunate habit of some for using the term ‘British’ more or less by default, whilst preferring ‘English’ (‘Scottish’, ‘Welsh’, etc.) when wishing to draw attention to their particular nation for whatever reason. Again, I refuse to be drawn any further on the reasons that might underlie such decisions, but if you yourself do this, would you please stop as it's very irritating for the rest of us, OK?

Europe

On rereading the above, I feel I have already said enough—and quite possibly far too much—on the subject. However, there is one further bugbear that I feel that needs to be brought out into the open, and this is the British (and yes, I do mean British) habit of saying that they are going ‘to’ Europe, as if they were not physically a part of the same continent. Britain, the UK, and the whole kit and caboodle are, were, and always will be part of Europe, whether we like it or not. No matter how much some people would like to distance ourselves from the [expletive deleted] French, the [removed for personal reasons] Germans, or any of the other sovereign nations of Europe, this is simply a geographical fact and it is time all of us Brits got used to it, regardless of our deeply held political beliefs. When talking about the rest of Europe (i.e. Europe minus the UK and Ireland—and yes, I do mean the Republic of Ireland), the correct term is continental Europe, or simply ‘the continent’ if you wish to be brief.

Personally I think the entire situation would be a whole lot simpler if we just all called ourselves European and were done with it, although this is clearly not a popular option as ‘leaving Europe’ [sic] still ranks highly on many people's political agendas, even though this would probably take an extremely large quantity of dynamite and some pretty damn powerful propellor engines to actually achieve in practice. Perhaps the government is hoping that if we build enough off-shore wind farms then the whole country will simply blow over to the other side of the Atlantic and finally be able to take up its rightful position as the 51st state of the USA, and put an end to all this pointless bickering.

Conclusion

To summarise, then:

(i) Whilst I do have some sympathy with those who find it difficult to comprehending the baroque and for the most part unwritten constitution(s) of the British Isles, the same people seem to have little difficulty in understanding the political structure of the United States, which is basically the same, and so there's not really much excuse for getting it wrong, is there?

(ii) Those who do persist in getting it wrong are frequently the ones who should know what they are talking about, i.e. those who actually live here, and if they can't get it right then what hope is there for anybody else?

(iii) It makes you wonder what they teach in school these days when many kids don't seem to know the difference between England, Britain and the rest of the UK, and insist on calling everything ‘English’ out of sheer desperation, ignorance or arrogance, I'm never quite sure which.

(iv) Would everybody please just work out where the hell they are actually from and decide once and for all what to call that, before the whole situation drives us all crazy? I for one have just about had enough to the point that I would consider moving somewhere else (Europe, perhaps?) just to make it simpler to understand and explain where I live.

(v) If there are any factual errors or inaccuracies in the above then it is quite likely that I will be heavily castigated, hoist by my own petard, expelled from polite society, and other such nasty things—although not necessarily in that order—and so I apologise humbly and profusely in advance if this is indeed turns out to be the case.

Maybe no-one else agrees with what I'm saying, and quite possibly no-one cares, but please, please, please, take a little more care over using such words as ’British’, ‘English’ and ‘Europe’ so as to avoid causing any further offence. This would be very much appreciated by all of the nationalities concerned, except perhaps in England, where they don't seem to care so much about such things. Thank you and good night. 

Posted at 11:25 AM       

Sunday - May 08, 2005

Making Poverty History 


Some weeks ago, I attended a meeting about the Make Poverty History campaign, a global initiative, endorsed by Oxfam and over 400 other charities and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The campaign is designed to raise awareness of the underlying or structural causes of global poverty, and to hold national governments to account over the millennium development goals, which many nations signed up to five years ago and have as yet made little progress towards achieving. 
The three main objectives of Make Poverty History are (i) achieving ‘trade justice’, i.e. fair—although not necessarily totally free or unregulated—trading between developed and developing countries, (ii) full cancellation of third-world debt; Britain has already cancelled its share, but much more is owed to the World Bank and other developed nations, and (iii) increasing the level and quality of international aid, with better targeting and fairer terms and conditions, such as removing the requirement for developing countries to liberalise their water or telecommunications markets if they do not so wish. The emphasis is very much on helping other countries to help themselves, rather than dictating to the developing world what they should and shouldn't be doing. They already know what is needed, and have the skills and imagination to make it happen, but are prevented from doing so by a crippling burden of debt and an unfair economic system that is rigged in favour of the richest nations.

2005 is a particularly opportune moment for the UK to promote this agenda as it holds the presidencies of both the G8 group of rich industrialised nations and the European Union later this year, giving it an excellent opportunity to press the case for a fairer and more equitable arrangement between developing and developed nations, as well as pushing for much needed reforms to international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have already promised to make poverty, AIDS and particularly Africa the themes of the UK's presidency of both organisations, and the Make Poverty History organisers are planning a massive demonstration in Edinburgh designed to draw attention to these issues at the time of the G8 summit on 2nd July.

Of course, this all sounds very worthy and laudable, but what, you may be wondering, does it have to do with you? Well, apart from the fact that we all contribute to and are affected by the reality of global poverty simply by being part of the international economic system, and the fact that it is our governments that are failing to meet their legal obligations agreed in the year 2000, the message of Make Poverty History is clear. They want to get as many people as possible thinking and talking about these issues in order to raise awareness and begin to generate the political will to do what is required to eradicate extreme poverty for good. Global poverty has arisen through ignorance, greed and neglect, and the more people that are aware of the issues the better. This in itself will create the political pressure needed to eliminate barriers that prevent poorer countries from helping themselves, removing many millions of people from the horror of poverty, disease and starvation. If the people who were suffering were our own friends, family or neighbours we would do almost anything to help them. Yet, because they live in another part of the world we stand by, unaware or unwilling to come to their assistance.

On a practical level, there are many things that you can do. Firstly, you can find out more about Make Poverty History from their web site, which contains a detailed manifesto of the campaign's objectives. You can go into any Oxfam shop and buy a white band for a pound to show your support, or get involved at a local level or by attending the demonstration in Edinburgh this July. But perhaps the most important thing you can do is simply to talk to others about the issues and the campaign to your friends, family, or just some bloke you met down at the pub. The more people that know about Make Poverty History, the more chance it has of making a real difference. Simply becoming aware of the current situation can be a powerful catalyst for change, and thinking about what you can do on an everyday or local level to help is a positive action in its own right.

Although 2005 will not see the end of poverty in the world, with a concerted effort of will and action from individual people, countries and governments, it is possible that this year will mark the beginning of the end. By holding our government to account and telling them that we want and expect them to uphold the agreements they have already made in our name, we can take an important step towards eliminating the terrible inequality in the world today. The necessary targets and actions have already been debated, costed and signed up to five years ago, and now it's time to make things happen. Let's not leave it too late. People are dying now, and you can do something about it: find out what's going on, show your support, and help others to do the same. History is made by many individuals acting together in the common good, and by acting together we really can make a difference. So, take a step towards stamping out poverty and suffering, and support the Make Poverty History campaign in whatever way you can. Their lives might just depend on it. 

Posted at 11:32 AM       

Thursday - May 05, 2005

Is Michael Howard really an alien? 


Whilst writing this entry for my blogtionary, I suddenly began to wonder: is Michael Howard really an alien from another planet? It is certainly consistent with many of his party's policies (opposition to immigration, hostility towards the other nations of Earth—particularly Iraq and the EU—and a predilection for locking people up at any possible opportunity), and a quick search on Google would tend to confirm this view, as that the fact that the Conservative Party has alien donors, the danger of such aliens getting into power, and even an interview with Michael Howard about his past life as an alien are widely reported. 
It is certainly true that earlier incarnations of Michael Howard (if that is indeed his name) had a somewhat less than human appearance. The enormous square glasses that he used to wear in the 1980s and 90s may have been required in order to compensate for differences between the atmosphere here on Earth and on his home planet, from which the creature known as ‘John Redwood’—widely also thought to be of non-human origin—may also have originated. Perhaps he is some kind of accomplice? Howard, however, now seems to have perfected his guise, although there is still something a little false and rather too mechanical about his demeanour for my liking.

In fact, when you look at most of the Tory front bench, there is something distinctly odd about each and every one them. It is as if they are lacking in—how shall I put it—humanity? Interestingly, all of the more personable figures (Kenneth Clarke, Chris Patten, the Michaels Portillo and Heseltine) have been mysteriously relegated to the back benches, despite their obvious wealth of experience and ability to lead the party. Is it possible that there is some sinister plot afoot to infiltrate the British government with extraterrestrials, perhaps to prepare the way for some kind of alien invasion? Perhaps the whole political class is in on the act, and the general election is simply a ruse designed to strengthen their grip on power… Or have I been watching too much Doctor Who?

[UPDATE: It looks like Michael Howard has been kept out of office, not just for another four years, but possibly for good. However, keep your eye on his successors as the recent shadow-cabinet reshuffle and proposed changes to the election process for Conservative leaders are no doubt designed to secure further alien hegemony. Good job we're onto them though, otherwise the world might be in even more terrible danger than it already is—which, it has to be said, is pretty bad in any case…] 

Posted at 01:35 PM       

Monday - April 25, 2005

A party election blogcast for the Green Party 


I was just sent the following message from the UK Green Party, quoting Caroline Lucas MEP, who reiterates many of the points I have been expounding here. I thought I'd include it here to stress that these guys are serious and have an important contribution to make to the political debate, regardless of whether they actually win any seats under the terrible first-past-the-post electoral system we have in this country. They are apparently fielding candidates in approximately one third of parliamentary seats this election and every vote really does make a difference in putting the environmental agenda on the map, so please give that a thought when you put the 'X' on your ballot paper on May 5th. 
In the immortal words of Pok from the Kingston Green Fair, ‘You like this planet, don't you? Do you want to see it go up in smoke?’

––––––––

"The Government's own scientific adviser has said that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism, yet it has been entirely absent from the Westminster parties' campaigns, because their policies and their records in office actively contribute to the problem."

Dr Lucas continues: "The Government's record is derisory - it has refused to implement key EU legislation on emissions reduction, and continues to back the biggest expansion of our aviation industry, the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, in a generation. The Lib Dems are no better. In Scotland, where they govern in coalition with Labour, they backed both the M74 Motorway extension, and opposed congestion charging in Edinburgh. Whilst the big three parties recycle Green rhetoric, the Greens are the only party offering the concrete measures—such as a 90% emissions reduction target by 2050—to genuinely address climate change."

"The records of the other parties are so similar because they all remain committed to pursuing economic growth at all costs. None accept that the challenges we face can't simply be met by tweaking business-as-usual with a few more targets and techno-fixes. Making reductions of greenhouse gas emissions on the scale we need means not only major investments in renewables and energy conservation, but also a revolution in the way we run our economy, the way we measure human welfare, and the way we produce and consume."

She concludes: "Quite simply, whilst the Big-Business driven Westminster parties may tinker round the edges, they do not have the political will to ring the Real changes needed to tackle climate change. Greens are radical, independent and principled enough to bring about real change. The message is simple: if you want to preserve the planet for future generations, vote Green." 

Posted at 12:19 AM       

Thursday - April 21, 2005

What Gordon Brown should be doing 


It has become a cliché in UK politics that people want better public services, but when it comes to providing the necessary funding, voters consistently opt for lower personal taxes as their highest priority. This attitude is compounded a system of means testing, which restricts many previously universal benefits to low income individuals and families. This leads to further disillusionment amongst the middle classes (who, let's face it, pay for most of this) as they don't see why they should devote so much of their hard-earned income in taxes when when they receive so little in return, creating a vicious cycle of under-investment and selfishness that doesn't benefit anybody. In my view, the UK tax system has become seriously distorted in order to pander to the public's obsession with not raising the standard rate of income tax: the most fair and progressive tax that there is. This has squeezed our politicians into an extremely tight corner, and in many cases led to highly regressive and unfair taxes being used to raise revenue instead, which only serves to aggravate the problem. But what can be done about it? Here are some areas that I think are in need of urgent attention.

WARNING: This entry contains extended ranting and unfeasibly long sentences. Under no circumstances should it be attempted to be read aloud other than by a trained vocal practitioner, otherwise serious breathing difficulties and possible asphyxiation may occur. 
Scrapping the Council Tax

The bastard offspring of Margaret Thatcher's disastrous Poll Tax, the Council Tax is extremely unfair and regressive because it takes little or no account of personal income, or the number of people living in each house. The Liberal Democrat's policy of replacing it with a local income tax would be far more sensible, and based on last year's figures, amounts to a 3.7% tax on personal income between the existing tax allowance and a proposed £100,000 ceiling. This leads to a bill of less than £600 for an average earner, around twice that figure for a middle income family, and rising to a maximum of £3,500 for a top-rate £100,000+ earner. Pensioners, students, etc. are automatically exempt due their incomes either being tax exempt or falling below the personal allowance threshold. The cost of collecting the tax would also be lower, as it is collected at source by the Inland Revenue, and once the tax came into effect, local and national rates of tax could be adjusted to better reflect the cost of the various services, leading to an overall fall in the national income tax rate; e.g. 20% national and 5% local income tax. All in all, this is a very well thought out policy that would go a long way towards making our tax system fairer and more modern.

Reducing VAT

It is interesting that one of the first things the current Labour government did when it came to power was to raise the standard rate of VAT (Value Added Tax) to 17.5%. This is far too high as it applies to most everyday essential items such as food, clothing and the like, and so the impacts upon low income families are correspondingly higher than they are for higher earners, all other things being equal. This is one of the reasons why things seem so expensive here in the UK, as many other countries have an equivalent sales tax rate of around 10% or less, which seems like a much more sensible figure, and would also help stimulate growth in the economy as people would be able to afford to buy more, even if their net incomes were slightly reduced.

More Environmental Taxes and Incentives

Many parties, including the Lib Dems and the Green Party, propose using the tax system to discourage environmentally harmful activities, such as use of fossil fuels and non-recyclable materials, and encourage the pursuit of more environmentally friendly alternatives, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency. Indeed, the current chancellor of the exchequer is actually in favour of such policies, which is one of the reasons – quite correctly in my view – that we have such high taxes on petrol and fossil fuels in this country. However, given the scale and urgency of the problem, he needs to go a lot further if he is to make the necessary impact.

The first thing would be to lobby for the introduction of a tax on aviation fuel throughout Europe, which is currently exempt from fuel duty, and would also encourage the production and use of local produce and foodstuffs. The second would be make companies directly responsible for the cost of cleaning up their pollution and recycling their products – the so-called ‘polluter pays’ principle – leading to the development of greener technologies, raw materials and recycling facilities. (Apple Computer are a good example of how this can be done in the field of consumer electronics). Thirdly, a range of incentives could be introduced to encourage private individuals and industry to invest in environmental measures such as biodiesel powered cars, solar powered heating and energy efficient electrical products. Together, these measure would lead to a drastic reduction UK carbon emissions and provide a shining example that developing countries such as India and China could follow in order to avert a global catastrophe of unparalleled proportions.

Introducing Top Rate Income Tax

Is it really right that Richard Branson, even assuming that he pays tax on his income, which is unlikely as most of it is probably held offshore, who earns millions of pounds each year pays the same marginal rate of tax as a primary school teacher earning just over the £24,000 bracket? OK, in practice, his overall tax bill still amounts to a lot more money, but there is a strong argument that (i) he can easily afford it and, somewhat more interestingly, (ii) he relies much more heavily on the stability and infrastructure that are provided by society in order to make his millions in the first place. Without proper roads, hospitals, schools and all the rest of it, there would be nobody to work for his companies, buy his products, and no banks to look after all his money, and so he has a much larger stake than all the rest of us in ensuring that the country as a whole is both socially and practically well provided for. I think that this argument needs to be made much more strongly than is currently the case, as it is undoubtedly true that those who make a lot of money are benefiting not only from their own initiative, but from the contribution of both other individuals and society, who provide them with the opportunity to prosper; a debt that should be repaid in higher rates of taxation for extremely high earners. Call it enforced philanthropy if you will.

Again, the Liberal Democrats seem to have got it right on this issue and are proposing a 50% marginal rate of tax on all earnings above £100,000. Not unreasonable, don't you think? Although it is astonishing that it is the Liberals and not the Labour Party who are proposing such an obviously redistributive tax on the rich, this is once again a sign that the general public – and, I have to say, particularly the English middle classes – is unwilling to fund a proper programme of social justice out of general taxation, and the government are forced to resort to more underhand techniques, such Gordon Brown's favourite policy of tax credits to benefit ‘hardworking families’ (if I hear that phrase coming out of a politicians mouth one more time this week, I think I may scream).

State Funded University Education

Although I managed to escape the £3,000 per year top-up fees that the government has introduced starting next year, I find it incredible that a country that wishes to market itself as a high-skilled knowledge economy expects its young people to repay debts of up to £20,000 for a three or four year course of study. Education has effectively become a commodity that is seen as a tool for getting a higher paid job, rather than a way of developing people's innate potential for the benefit of the individual and society alike. Not only do we need more doctors, nurses, teachers and skilled practitioners of all kinds, our very democracy requires a high level of education amongst the general public in order to function effectively and make the right decisions for the future. It cannot be right to create any disincentive to studying, and the fact that people are unwilling to fund our universities from general taxation just shows how ignorant they are of its very real benefits for society as a whole. After all, who is going to pay for your state pension when you retire if it isn't today's university graduates who will still be working when you retire?

As soon as we start to see education to a means to an end, rather than a good in its own right, we are undermining the foundations of society itself. This is clearly evident in the individualistic and often downright selfish attitudes of today's younger generations, as well as many of the parents that have raised them. How a Labour government can preside over such a policy is completely beyond me, and I think that university top-up fees should be scrapped immediately and replaced with a proper system of government funding (although a graduate tax might also prove to be a workable solution, provided that enough money can be raised in the short-term).

Reforming Inheritance Tax

In a meritocracy, everyone would start off with equal chances for success, based on ability and initiative alone. Whilst it is understandable that people want to give their kids the best possible start in life, I do not believe it is helpful that certain individuals inherit a large quantity of money, property, and so on, whilst others get nothing. Inheriting a fortune may even hold someone back as there is less incentive for them rely on their own resources and develop as a person in their own right. Government should redress the balance by increasing taxes on inheritance, possibly using a sliding scale, as per income tax, with very large sums being taxed at 50%. Capital may instead be donated to charity or used to start a trust fund or pay for public projects that would benefit many more people than the deceased individual's immediate family.

The Tobin Tax

This system was proposed in 1972 by Professor James Tobin to try and stabilise fluctuations in global currency trading after the USA pulled out of the Bretton-Woods agreement of exchange rate management. Given that London is now home to one of the largest financial markets in the world, the UK government could become a leading player in helping to ensure that currency crises, such as the recent collapse of the Japanese and South American currencies, are avoided whilst raising billions of pounds in revenue for international development or other national priorities. In fact, this is such a good idea that I think that all financial trading should be subject to this kind of low-rate taxation (0.5% or 1% of transaction value) to discourage short-term speculation, which tends to lead to long-term financial instability and generally undermines the whole purpose of the stock market, which is to provide working capital for businesses whilst providing lenders with a return on their investment in line with the fortunes of the companies they invest in. All too often, the link between growth and financial return is broken or non-existent, leading to the worst kind of short-termism and excess, as was demonstrated by the recent dot-com bubble and the terrible ‘boom and bust’ economy of the 80s and early 90s.

Making Benefits Universal

The desire to target funding towards those who need it most via means testing is understandably strong, but its other effect is to remove the incentive for those who pay for the such benefits to contribute to the system. Although some benefits, such as disability allowance or income support, are understandably means tested, there is no reason why others, such as unemployment benefit, student grants and pensions, shouldn't be universal. Why should someone who has diligently saved and paid their taxes be penalised for their financial prudence, whilst somebody who has spent every penny they ever earned gets subsidised by the state? Surely anyone who has paid taxes deserves to be treated equally by the system, and any government that diverges from this principle is simply storing up the causes for future discontent and disenfranchisement. Unfortunately, the only way to achieve this is to raise the amount of tax on income, which as I have discussed at some length is tantamount to electoral suicide in today's political climate.

The Net Effect

Taken together, the above changes to the tax system would actually enable the standard rate of income tax to be reduced, the cost of living to fall, and our society would be all the more fair and prosperous because of it. The four tax bands could be set at, say, 10%, 20%, 35% and 50%, or perhaps they could be done away with altogether and replaced with a single formula that calculates the level of taxation on a sliding scale based on each individual's total earnings. Now there's a novelty! No more arguing about the effect of this rate rise or that personal allowance change. There would be just one number: the rate of tax that applies to average (or median, if we want to be precise) earnings, and is adjusted according to where one falls on the scale of rich to poor, with universal benefits for all. What could be fairer than that?

The only thing that stands in the way of such reforms is the reluctance of the average Joe and Joetta with their 2.4 children and semi-detached house in Essex (don't laugh, it applies to you too) to see a tiny bit more of their income deducted at source, rather than being clawed back from them in various divisive wheezes devised by an over-stretched and underfunded chancellor? I realise that I'm in danger of sounding like an ‘everything would be just hunky-dory if I ran the planet’ kind of nutcase, but come on, do we really have to go through this facile ‘I'm not paying a penny more in income tax’ debate every general, local and European election? Or can we act like grown-ups and take a long hard look at the state of our nation and decide that it's in everyone's best interests if we just stump up the extra cash required to create a fairer, more equitable system of taxation that reflects our supposedly modern, just and egalitarian society?

— END OF RANT — 

Posted at 02:35 PM       

Thursday - April 21, 2005

Twenty energy saving tips 


As I keep banging on about, climate change is probably the single most important threat facing our species, but what can the average person do about it? Given that over one third of the UK's carbon emissions come from private households—and that's not counting the emissions created in producing all the various products that we buy—even small changes to our everyday habits and patterns of consumption can have a dramatic effect. Here are some suggestions that, even if you only follow a few of them, will help you to save time and money, as well as reducing your ‘ecological footprint’ and personal contribution to global warming. You know it makes sense! 
1. When boiling the kettle, only fill it with the required amount of water. It saves time, energy, and tastes better than boiling the same water twice.

2. Save any unused tap water in a jug and use for watering houseplants. Alternatively, if you have a garden, install a water butt and avoid the inevitable hose-pipe ban this summer.

3. Turn central heating thermostats and radiators down a couple of degrees and wear warmer clothes instead. After all, we don't live in a tropical country, do we?

4. Recycle! If you don't have a kerbside collection, bulky materials such as glass, metal, cardboard and plastic can be stored in a box under the stairs for periodic trips to the local recycling facilities.

5. When going shopping, take some old carrier bags or boxes with you to carry things home in. String bags are also great for carrying groceries etc. and save on carrier bags (which are made of plastic, and take many years to biodegrade).

6. Replace worn-out batteries with rechargeable ones. This saves money, energy and minimises chemical pollution from dead battery cells. (Oh, and don't forget to recycle the worn out ones!)

7. Use a bike or walk instead of taking the car for short journeys. Not only is this more environmentally friendly, but you can get fit at the same time.

8. Buy local produce where possible. Many towns have excellent farmers markets, veggie-box delivery schemes, and you can check the country of origin for fruit, vegetables, bottled water and other products on supermarket labels.

9. Keep to the speed limit. Driving over 60mph is less fuel efficient and produces more carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Leaving more time for your journey will allow you to arrive feeling less stressed, save money, and minimise pollution.

10. Use energy efficient lightbulbs, fridges, freezers, washing machines, etc. Energy efficient lightbulbs last much longer and use a fraction of the electricity, and many electrical appliances are now given star ratings for energy efficiency so that you can plan your purchases wisely.

11. Turn the TV off at the set when not in use, and particularly overnight. Leaving the TV in standby mode consumes a lot more electricity than you'd think. (If you're going away on holiday, it's also a good idea to unplug the set from the wall, as it can leak electricity back into the mains system causing a fire hazard.)

12. Switch lights off when not needed, rather than leaving them on all the time. (This one should be a no-brainer, but how many of us really do this in practice?)

13. When cooking, putting a lid on your saucepans allows food to cook at a lower setting as less heat is wasted. Turning the gas or electricity off just before the food is ready will also save you a few extra pennies.

14. Sharing a bath or a shower with a loved one not only saves water and energy, but is much more fun!

15. Ironing clothes is a waste of time and energy. Instead, cultivate an ‘elegantly rumpled’ look – and if you or your partner still feels the need to iron socks, underwear, pillow cases or other such nonsense, perhaps you need to get out more...

16. Regularly defrost your freezer, and turn down the fridge and freezer thermostat, keeping them well stocked with food or empty boxes to minimise loss of cold air when the door is opened.

17. Wait until you have a full load of washing before putting it in the machine, and use an eco-wash programme if you have one. (Hint: you may need to go and buy more socks and underwear!)

18. Go diesel. When you're buying a new car, consider switching to a diesel model. They are much cheaper to run and so produce less pollution, and although the cars themselves are more expensive, the environmental and long term benefits are considerable.

19. Grill or microwave food instead of putting it in the oven. This is more energy efficient because little or preheating is required, and less energy is wasted to heat loss.

20. Use less of everything. Every product that you buy or use requires some amount of energy to produce or deliver. Use less and you will be consuming less energy. It's as simple as that.

For more ecological tips and information, track down a copy of Blueprint For A Green Planet by John Seymour et al or check out the Global Action Plan web site, from which many of the above suggestions were taken. 

Posted at 08:28 AM       

Tuesday - April 12, 2005

Some personal observations about the Scots 


1. On average, Scots tend to have slightly larger noses than other people (Germans being one obvious exception to the rule).

2. They are not afraid to look you in the eye when walking down the street, or anywhere else for that matter.

3. They are generally warm, friendly and generous to a fault, whilst being simultaneously careful with money—a virtue known as ‘thrift’ in Scotland—mainly because they don't tend to have a lot.

4. They do not stand for heirs, graces and pretension, and are quick to cut down to size anyone who is seen exhibiting them.

5. Scottish people often finish other people's sentences as a means of expressing agreement or rapport. This is quite normal and not considered at all offensive or rude. 
...and contrary to popular belief, not all Scotsmen have red hair and beards (the author and immediate clan members notwithstanding!). And as to what a true Scotsman wears under his kilt, if you don't know that already then I'm afraid I'm not going to be the one to enlighten you. 

Posted at 04:15 PM       

Friday - April 08, 2005

Five reasons to vote Green 


Thanks to our archaic electoral system here in the UK, voting for the Green Party is sometimes seen as a wasted or pointless vote. However, if you have any interest in environmental issues whatsoever, here are some reasons that you may want to consider in casting your vote in the coming general election. 
1. Green votes influences the political agenda. The fact that electing a Green MP is unlikely under a first-past-the-post system is often cited as a reason not to vote Green. However, all political parties pay close attention to the polls, and if increasing numbers of people vote Green, it will force the other parties to adopt more environmentally sustainable policies, regardless of who gets into power.

2. Global warming is the single most important issue facing our generation. More people will die as a result of global warming and other environmental effects created by humans than did in the Iraq War, September 11th and the Holocaust put together. Environmental change is a reality and we need to act now to stave off its worst consequences, as well as make changes to our economy and lifestyles in order to safeguard the future for ourselves, our children, and countless millions of others.

3. Voting Green is a protest vote. If you normally vote for one of the other main parties but are not impressed by the policies they have to offer, or have pursued over the last four years, instead of staying at home or spoiling your ballot paper (the traditional way to endorse ‘none of the above’), why not register your dissatisfaction by voting for a party with a different agenda? Who knows, you might even save the planet.

4. Radical change is needed. Let's face it, each of the three main parties has a very similar agenda that essentially preserves the status quo plus or minus a few minor modifications, and it is often difficult to tell their policies apart. Instead of tinkering around the edges, let's have some real change and progressive thinking. We may be proud old Brits, but this is the 21st century and new problems call for new solutions and approaches that the old politics just isn't delivering. Isn't it time for a new approach?

5. None of the other main parties are worth the ballot paper they are written on. Despite pre-election rhetoric, all of the main parties are entrenched in the all too familiar ‘yah-boo’ form of debate that turns so many people off politics. It's not surprising that many people conclude that they are all as bad as each other and vote to stay at home on election day, or cast a cynical vote for the least worst option. Don't do it! Vote Green instead and your vote will go towards making a positive difference, as well as eliminating any nasty lingering guilt that you might feel when you realise that your favoured party's policies turn out to be the ones responsible for wrecking the planet. 

Posted at 10:31 AM       

Wednesday - April 06, 2005

The University of York - is it square or what? 


No, I'm not making an obscure existential point (for a change). Although I didn't know it before going to study there, York has a reputation for being one of the dorkiest universities in England, and I have to say that there is perhaps more than a little truth to this rumour. Perhaps I'm hanging out in the wrong bars, or moving in the wrong circles (actually, I don't hang out in any bars or move in circles, which is perhaps part of the problem), but York students are, on the whole, astonishingly sensible and hardworking. What's going on? 
Having previously studied at university in Kingston-Upon-Thames for a Higher Diploma in Music Technology, I already had a fair idea of the delights that university life has to offer. Although I enjoyed the experience immensely, I had no particular intention of repeating the late nights, heavy drinking and ‘experimental lifestyle’ (you figure it out!) the second time around. Perhaps it's because I'm a mature student (horrible term), but I feel no particular need to rebel or prove myself other than academically speaking, and because I am taking a subject that I really enjoy, fully intend to get as much as I possibly can out of the opportunity to study it in detail.

However, even I (not the most hip and happening of people, as I readily admit) was surprised at how, well, conservative a lot of my fellow students are. Don't get me wrong, they are lovely people and I have made a lot of friends there, but generally speaking you don't see many really ‘way out’ types (you know, funny coloured hair, extreme dress codes, and so on). It says a lot that the two most popular student societies on campus are the Conservative Society and the Christian Society. Hardly radical, I think you will agree. There is one guy on campus who has a giant afro hairdo and he sticks out such a mile that everybody who studies at York will immediately know who you are talking about if you mention it. For the most part, however, people dress, well, quite normally (whatever that means). Most students have a rather unidentifiable South of England accent, come from a reasonably well off middle class background and have a good education, possibly at a private school (although not exclusively so) to the point that anyone who doesn't quite fit into that mould is conspicuously obvious.

Perhaps it's because York doesn't teach many visual or performing arts subjects, so there are very few of the real extrovert creative types to balance out the rest of us, or catalyse us into nonconformity. Or perhaps it's something to do with the fact that York sets fairly high entry requirements and so only takes the brainier students, giving it a higher proportion of ‘school swots’ than your average education institution. However, I have a feeling that this has much more to do with the socio-economic background of the people who send their kids here than anything about the university itself. Along with Durham, Warwick, Bath, and others, York is seen as a good choice for students who, for whatever reason, don't make it to Oxford or Cambridge, but want to earn a well respected degree at an established university. Hence most people seem to be pretty focussed on their courses, even though it's often not a subject that they are particularly interested in (a degree seems to have more of a commodity value these days than any particular relevance to an intended line of work, never mind preparing you for life, although there are obvious exceptions).

Personally, I'm not too bothered by all this. Although I do feel more at home in a broad diversity of people of all colours, shapes and sizes (one of the reasons I never felt completely comfortable living in Bath was that it is rather too much of a monoculture for my liking), having experienced both sides of the ‘cool divide’ while working in the IT and music industries (hint: one is, and the other not – I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions), all other things being equal, I think I'd rather be a dork. Although there are some obvious disadvantages (staying in at night, lack of spontaneous wit and repartee, not to mention decreased sexual desirability – not that that's of particular concern to me at the moment), it's just nice not to have to worry about having to dress to impress, having the latest cool gadget and/or taste in music and/or body piercings, and to just talk to people for a change without feeling like you constantly have to compete. So often, what appears to others as ‘cool’ turns out to be just so much front, and I'd rather choose substance over style any day of the week (of course, the ideal would be to mix the two, but hey, nobody's perfect).

Yes, I think I like it here at York. And what do we need to be cool for anyway? We've got a lake. With ducks.

:-) 

Posted at 05:26 PM       

Saturday - February 05, 2005

Greenhouse denial 


After reading the conclusions of the recent Exeter conference on global warming (that it's ever worse than we thought and average temperatures could rise up to 11ºC over the next 100 years) I am struck by the almost total disregard for the seriousness of this problem amongst the general public. Although most people would admit that this a problem, very few seem to be prepared to make even small adjustments to their own lifestyle habits to try and improve the situation. What is going on? Are we in some kind of mass denial, or do people really think that it's got nothing to do with them? 
Personally, I find the fact that we have waited so long to take substantive action deeply disturbing and I feel that individual citizens (i.e. you and me) bear a heavy burden of responsibility for knowingly exacerbating the problem. Although I try to do as much as I can (recycling, using energy efficient lightbulbs, minimising unnecessary car journeys, turning off lights and other electrical items when not in use, only boiling one cup worth of water when making tea, reducing use of central heating, reusing carrier bags, and so on), I don't think this is enough, and I suspect that most people don't even do half of that.

It's even more worrying that younger generations seem to have little or no interest in the matter, and lack even a basic awareness of environmental sustainability. Although some are willing to take part in mass rallies to hold governments to account, when it comes to taking small, practical actions (or dare I mention, perhaps even a little personal sacrifice?) to stave off the damage from excessive fossil fuel use and deforestation, the enthusiasm is positively underwhelming. Sustainability, like charity, most definitely begins at home and if people don't even have the savvy to switch off their TVs overnight (leaving them in standby uses a lot of electricity!) when not in use or to recycle their empty Coke and beer cans then what hope do we have of achieving wider and more lasting change?

I think there are two underlying factors at play here. The first is what is often termed the tragedy of the commons, which results in the ultimate demise of both what is held in common 'ownership' (the land, air, seas etc.) along with those that depend upon it (i.e. all of us). This is well documented and is now being played out on a global scale, with no one nation being willing to face up to its global responsibility and address the real problem. The second is much more subtle. Many people just don't see climate change as their problem, and are looking to government for action. However, in a modern democracy, this just doesn't work as government is looking right back to popular opinion to guide and inform its policies, so we end up in a deadly embrace of mutual inaction. Just think, which major political party would be willing to embark on a radical program of economic reform based on financial penalties tied to environmental impacts? This kind of top-down leadership is a recipe for political suicide (just think of the Iraq war!) and will never happen unless we, the electorate, demand it and are willing to suffer the consequences, which after all, are massively preferably to what will inevitably follow from irreversible global climate change.

The urge to blame somebody else runs deep and strong. How many times have we all thought "If only the government would do something about 'X', then everything would be OK"? Or another favourite, "Of course, without America ratifying the Kyoto Protocol then it's not worth the recycled paper that it's written on." Yes, America does bear a large responsibility for bringing its greenhouse gas emissions under control, but so do we all. Both individually and collectively we are responsible for this problem through our everyday actions and behaviour, and we have the power to change that on both a personal and regional level. And don't kid yourself, America's emissions will look like an acid rain drop in the ocean once China and India reach Western levels of personal consumption, as will almost certainly happen in the next few decades. The environmental train is about to leave the platform and there is no point saying "Well, I'm not going if they don't". It's time to get on board for the sake of our own children and grandchildren, not to mention millions of others in every country across the world. Staying behind in the station is no longer even an option as so much damage has already been done that there is no way to preserve the status quo, even if we wanted to.

So what can we do? There are many small, practical actions that can be taken at home, at work, and by changing our shopping habits to switch to environmentally sustainable (or at least less environmentally damaging) products. Even better, spread the word that environmental action is not just for hippies, it concerns all of us, and we are all equally responsible for doing something about it now before it is too late. Finally, get politically active. Lobby not only MPs and government but local firms and shops to change their policies. They are waiting for you, the customer, to demand change and will not do anything to damage their profit margin unless by not doing they will lose business because people simply go elsewhere. You may also want to think about voting Green Party at the next election. Although our archaic 'first past the post' political system is unlikely to deliver a Green MP any time soon, the more people that vote for environmental action, the more the major parties will sit up and listen and start to take climate change seriously. Far from being a wasted vote, this sends a powerful message straight to the party leaderships, and by using the ballot box in this way, each of us can play our part in influencing the political agenda for the entire country.

I have no doubt that people will look back on the 20th and 21st centuries and wonder what the hell were we all thinking, destroying our own environment in such an appalling way. Whilst we can all do our bit to stave off the worst effects of climate change, what is really needed is a change in the social and political climate, away from profit, individualism and greed, and towards a more ecologically sustainable, 'intra-personal' way of life. The tragedy of the commons is that by seeking to advance our own interests we are destroying the very resources that we rely upon. Don't be a part of it! Choose a different future, and help others to do the same, and maybe, just maybe we will be able to look our own children in the eye and truthfully say, "It wasn't my fault." 

Posted at 01:22 PM       

© 1995-2006