The Stop Stansted Expansion campaign are vociferously opposing BAA’s plans to increase the number of permitted air traffic movements at Stansted from 241,000 to 264,000 a year and thus increase their maximum passenger handling ability by an additional ten million passengers per year.
A spokesperson for the group told the BBC: "If Stansted were permitted to expand to maximum use of the existing runway, the local environment would suffer, the national economy would suffer and we would have taken a giant step backwards in the battle to combat climate change."
They added that the expansion would not help the economy because it was encouraging people to go on holiday abroad - Rather stretching it there perhaps, certainly if would pour millions of pounds extra into the airport and presumably, local jobs and the wider local economy. Anthropomorphic Global Warming is a new weapon in their armoury.
The villages surrounding the airport are, it must be said, very picturesque, with many thatched cottages. There is a direct motorway link to the airport so little need for airport traffic to pass through them.
I suspect the fact of the matter is that very few of these people could possibly have been resident in the area before Stansted became one of London’s airports. The writing was on the wall in 1970 and by 78 there was a white paper laying things out very clearly and the latter was the best part of 30 years ago. No one who moved there after 1978 could have been in any reasonable doubt of the situation.
No. The protestors are more in the position of someone who buys, or builds, a house next door to a busy public house - and then complains bitterly about the noise and customers.
Wednesday, 30 May 2007
When is organic food not organic? When it's not Green.
The UK Soil Association may be about to take the dangerous step of giving up any real claim to the authority to be the arbiter of weather food is actually organic.
It looks as if the organisation, which campaigns for organic food and certifies which foods are organic, is straying off it’s own turf and being politicised. Apparently, due to growing demands (who’s exactly, in this context) to cut the environmental impact of food distribution, the organisation is now considering five options to reduce the carbon footprint of food.
It is releasing a consultation document next week that will outline a series of options, including a demand to partially, or fully, strip food imported into the UK by air of it’s organic status and much more detailed labelling showing a product's country of origin plus the air miles it has travelled and carbon offsetting schemes.
They do concede that some of the proposals might harm developing countries, with poor infrastructure, who have to use air transport to get their goods to market and say any decision would have to take into account the impact on farmers in the developing world.
In other words they might for instance end up torpedoing the ‘Free Trade’ products.
I wonder if they have taken into account EU Law and the restraint of trade some of these ideas might involve on organic producers in other EC States.
What amazes me is that they are, apparently without batting an eye, willing to effectively re-write the actual (widely understood) definition of what actually constitutes organic food!
In other words it will no longer be good enough for food to just actually really be organic. No now it must be ’green', as well as organic. The goalposts moved so fast there that you could be forgiven for not noticing them actually shift.
What next? Ban food produced under ‘glass’? Maybe they ought to ban all pulses ;-) because of the resultant greenhouse gasses (methane) they contribute when they are consumed…
It looks as if the organisation, which campaigns for organic food and certifies which foods are organic, is straying off it’s own turf and being politicised. Apparently, due to growing demands (who’s exactly, in this context) to cut the environmental impact of food distribution, the organisation is now considering five options to reduce the carbon footprint of food.
It is releasing a consultation document next week that will outline a series of options, including a demand to partially, or fully, strip food imported into the UK by air of it’s organic status and much more detailed labelling showing a product's country of origin plus the air miles it has travelled and carbon offsetting schemes.
They do concede that some of the proposals might harm developing countries, with poor infrastructure, who have to use air transport to get their goods to market and say any decision would have to take into account the impact on farmers in the developing world.
In other words they might for instance end up torpedoing the ‘Free Trade’ products.
I wonder if they have taken into account EU Law and the restraint of trade some of these ideas might involve on organic producers in other EC States.
What amazes me is that they are, apparently without batting an eye, willing to effectively re-write the actual (widely understood) definition of what actually constitutes organic food!
In other words it will no longer be good enough for food to just actually really be organic. No now it must be ’green', as well as organic. The goalposts moved so fast there that you could be forgiven for not noticing them actually shift.
What next? Ban food produced under ‘glass’? Maybe they ought to ban all pulses ;-) because of the resultant greenhouse gasses (methane) they contribute when they are consumed…
You are Here - A political compass
Another oldie, but interesting.
The political compass. I am not 100% sure it is quite accurate, as it forces choices where you might want to give more qualified responses and I am not all that sure about what they see as left, or right, in all instances, but it is simultaneously both a bit of fun and thought provoking.
The state of the UK parties is a little out of date. If you look at the UK parties for 2006 it puts the Greens (as of 2005) on the libertarian left whilst recent experience might place them much more on the authoritarian left.
Nu-Lab are clearly be much more authoritarian than the Conservatives and it tracks this, thought they seem to have drifted even further since the graph was done. Arguably they are both very close on the Left/Right axis, closer than shown.
The Liberals are probably much further left than shown and possibly less libertarian. I would have put them just over the mid point.
The political compass. I am not 100% sure it is quite accurate, as it forces choices where you might want to give more qualified responses and I am not all that sure about what they see as left, or right, in all instances, but it is simultaneously both a bit of fun and thought provoking.
The state of the UK parties is a little out of date. If you look at the UK parties for 2006 it puts the Greens (as of 2005) on the libertarian left whilst recent experience might place them much more on the authoritarian left.
Nu-Lab are clearly be much more authoritarian than the Conservatives and it tracks this, thought they seem to have drifted even further since the graph was done. Arguably they are both very close on the Left/Right axis, closer than shown.
The Liberals are probably much further left than shown and possibly less libertarian. I would have put them just over the mid point.
Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Global warming debate heats up
Now this is just a little scary.
According to the Guardian a number of so-called ‘climate scientists’ are attempting to block the DVD release of the documentary, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, that casts doubts of the idea of anthropocentric, or man made, global warming.
In a letter, coordinated by Bob Ward, a former press officer with the Royal Society, 37 experts have called for the DVD to be either heavily edited, or actually banned from sale.
Mr Ward was quoted, on the subject of his attempt to suppress the documentary, as saying: “This isn't about censorship, it's a question of quality control.”.
Surely the best way to refute any alleged errors, or points of disagreement, in the documentary would be to - well - actually refute them. Not try to suppress the airing of those views. Hardly what one would naturally think of as in the spirit of scientific enquiry.
Martin Durkin who made the documentary responded: "This contemptible attempt at gagging won't work. The reason they want to suppress The Great Global Warming Swindle is because the science has stung them. By comparison look at the mountains of absurd nonsense pedalled in the name of 'manmade climate change'. Too many scientists have staked their reputations and built their careers on global warming. There's a lot riding on this ridiculous theory..
It does make one wonder why those who wish to promote the theory of anthropocentric global warming are so sensitive. Their response seems to have more in common with a zealot, who’s religion has been questioned, or called into doubt. As Mr Durcan pointed out there are an awful lot of scientists and perhaps more significantly, though he didn't mention them, politicians, who have staked their reputations, careers and future income on the man made global warming gravy train.
Bob Ward and his fellow travellers would probably not want the general public to pay too much attention to say, recent, equivalent, global warming on Mars. They would have a hard time blaming that on a couple of solar powered Martian Rovers after all.
According to the Guardian a number of so-called ‘climate scientists’ are attempting to block the DVD release of the documentary, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, that casts doubts of the idea of anthropocentric, or man made, global warming.
In a letter, coordinated by Bob Ward, a former press officer with the Royal Society, 37 experts have called for the DVD to be either heavily edited, or actually banned from sale.
Mr Ward was quoted, on the subject of his attempt to suppress the documentary, as saying: “This isn't about censorship, it's a question of quality control.”.
Surely the best way to refute any alleged errors, or points of disagreement, in the documentary would be to - well - actually refute them. Not try to suppress the airing of those views. Hardly what one would naturally think of as in the spirit of scientific enquiry.
Martin Durkin who made the documentary responded: "This contemptible attempt at gagging won't work. The reason they want to suppress The Great Global Warming Swindle is because the science has stung them. By comparison look at the mountains of absurd nonsense pedalled in the name of 'manmade climate change'. Too many scientists have staked their reputations and built their careers on global warming. There's a lot riding on this ridiculous theory..
It does make one wonder why those who wish to promote the theory of anthropocentric global warming are so sensitive. Their response seems to have more in common with a zealot, who’s religion has been questioned, or called into doubt. As Mr Durcan pointed out there are an awful lot of scientists and perhaps more significantly, though he didn't mention them, politicians, who have staked their reputations, careers and future income on the man made global warming gravy train.
Bob Ward and his fellow travellers would probably not want the general public to pay too much attention to say, recent, equivalent, global warming on Mars. They would have a hard time blaming that on a couple of solar powered Martian Rovers after all.
It seems that, sometimes, 'They' do listen
China is not exactly known for it’s willingness to allow the open and free exchange of information. For a start it blocks news websites and regularly blocks websites that do not agree with government views.
However this is hopefully some good news. The Chinese government had been planning to force millions of Chinese bloggers to register their real names. It is estimated there are some 20 million bloggers in China and the idea mooted last year provoked enormous objections from Chinese internet users, rejecting the idea as a move by the government to control information.
The government had attempted to justify the compulsory scheme by suggesting that it would make bloggers more ‘responsible for their behaviour’ and that real-name registration would ‘protect’ users from libel, pornography and other ‘harmful’ information.
Now the Chinese government has backed away from actually forcing bloggers to register and are bringing in a voluntary code instead. It will encourage bloggers to register with their real names and personal details, offering improved services as an incentive to those who register.
Blogs in China have developed into an informal way of spreading news that can not be got through mainstream media - popular blogs get millions of hits every day.
Keeping in mind that they were facing a compulsory system, it seems as if bloggers are cautiously welcoming the new voluntary code.
However this is hopefully some good news. The Chinese government had been planning to force millions of Chinese bloggers to register their real names. It is estimated there are some 20 million bloggers in China and the idea mooted last year provoked enormous objections from Chinese internet users, rejecting the idea as a move by the government to control information.
The government had attempted to justify the compulsory scheme by suggesting that it would make bloggers more ‘responsible for their behaviour’ and that real-name registration would ‘protect’ users from libel, pornography and other ‘harmful’ information.
Now the Chinese government has backed away from actually forcing bloggers to register and are bringing in a voluntary code instead. It will encourage bloggers to register with their real names and personal details, offering improved services as an incentive to those who register.
Blogs in China have developed into an informal way of spreading news that can not be got through mainstream media - popular blogs get millions of hits every day.
Keeping in mind that they were facing a compulsory system, it seems as if bloggers are cautiously welcoming the new voluntary code.
Friday, 25 May 2007
UK DoH advises against any Alcohol
The UK Department of Health is now advising that pregnant women - and those trying for a baby - should avoid alcohol completely.
Previous advice was not to drink more than one, to two, units of alcohol, once, or twice, a week - and be sure not to get drunk at all.
The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr Fiona Adshead stated:
"We have strengthened our advice to women to help ensure that no-one underestimates the risk to the developing foetus of drinking above the recommended safe levels.”
There appears to be no new evidence and no new studies to suggest the previous advice was unsafe.
From what Dr Adshead said, it appears reason they are changing the government line is because they think many women are unable to understand the previous advice - so they have decided to recommend against all alcohol?
So then, this looks rather like another example of the nanny state treating us as if we are all idiots, incapable of making sensible decisions ourselves.
Just because there may be a minority who cannot, or will not, look after themselves it does not mean all of us are not capable.
What next? Compulsory padded mittens and no cutlery?
Previous advice was not to drink more than one, to two, units of alcohol, once, or twice, a week - and be sure not to get drunk at all.
The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr Fiona Adshead stated:
"We have strengthened our advice to women to help ensure that no-one underestimates the risk to the developing foetus of drinking above the recommended safe levels.”
There appears to be no new evidence and no new studies to suggest the previous advice was unsafe.
From what Dr Adshead said, it appears reason they are changing the government line is because they think many women are unable to understand the previous advice - so they have decided to recommend against all alcohol?
So then, this looks rather like another example of the nanny state treating us as if we are all idiots, incapable of making sensible decisions ourselves.
Just because there may be a minority who cannot, or will not, look after themselves it does not mean all of us are not capable.
What next? Compulsory padded mittens and no cutlery?
Thursday, 24 May 2007
Darling down on Freedom of Information
Ouch! British MPs really do have a downer on the Freedom of Information Act (FoI)
Trade Secretary Alistair Darling wants much tighter restrictions on the Freedom of Information Act, according to the BBC. He is concerned that it does not sufficiently protect advice from officials to ministers.
The Act has already taken a severe hammering from parliament including moves underway, including one to exempt MPs and another to restrict costs.
In a letter to the Lord Chancellor he argues that "incremental harm" could be done to policy development and asks for the Act to be reviewed. Mr Darling emphasises his concern that the Information Tribunal has ruled against the government in favour of openness. He is trying to claim that the demands of the FoI Act were "placing good government at risk".
He apparently feels disclosure of correspondence between MPs and ministers, even if ostensibly innocuous, will inhibit the dialogue between MPs and their constituents.
He goes on to claim, "If we are to live under constant threat of publication, this will prevent MPs from expressing their views frankly when writing to a minister. We need urgent advice on what the position is".
Maybe so, if the views and dialog are on when might be a good day to bury bad news. But, one suspects, more likely Ministers and MPs are so down on transparency because they fear being held to account.
For instance, when treasury documents released under the act in earlier this year proved officials warned the treasury that abolishing dividend tax credits (Gordon Brown’s budget in 1997) “would make a big hole in pensions scheme finances". Something denied by the treasury.
Trade Secretary Alistair Darling wants much tighter restrictions on the Freedom of Information Act, according to the BBC. He is concerned that it does not sufficiently protect advice from officials to ministers.
The Act has already taken a severe hammering from parliament including moves underway, including one to exempt MPs and another to restrict costs.
In a letter to the Lord Chancellor he argues that "incremental harm" could be done to policy development and asks for the Act to be reviewed. Mr Darling emphasises his concern that the Information Tribunal has ruled against the government in favour of openness. He is trying to claim that the demands of the FoI Act were "placing good government at risk".
He apparently feels disclosure of correspondence between MPs and ministers, even if ostensibly innocuous, will inhibit the dialogue between MPs and their constituents.
He goes on to claim, "If we are to live under constant threat of publication, this will prevent MPs from expressing their views frankly when writing to a minister. We need urgent advice on what the position is".
Maybe so, if the views and dialog are on when might be a good day to bury bad news. But, one suspects, more likely Ministers and MPs are so down on transparency because they fear being held to account.
For instance, when treasury documents released under the act in earlier this year proved officials warned the treasury that abolishing dividend tax credits (Gordon Brown’s budget in 1997) “would make a big hole in pensions scheme finances". Something denied by the treasury.
The Freedom to keep Information Secret Act?
Richard Thomas, the UK Information Commissioner, is planning to say that, the Freedom of Information Act's reputation is being jeopardised by "pointless and mischievous" requests.
He cites examples such as, a request to the Foreign Office on the amount spent on Ferrero Rocher chocolate, or one on how many eligible bachelors there were in the Hampshire police. Also how the BBC, has received over 90 enquiries from one person concerning the amount of expenses paid to senior staff.
He plans to outline new guidelines, highlighting the right of public bodies to reject "vexatious" requests and argues "A charter for responsible FoI requests will help to prevent requests which have no serious purpose or value, impose disproportionate burdens or have the effect of harassing the public body."
All couched in reasonable terms and language.
So who decides if it is “Vexatious”? If you don’t get a satisfactory answer the first, or second, time? Will you be able to ask again, or will you be branded as a loony, or a pest and thus safe to be ignored?
What next – A government database of pests to be refused under the Act?
It beats actually being put in a mental institution the way they were said to in the good old USSR I suppose…
How long before you have to justify why you want the info, make a case for it?
Probably the Ferero Rocher was a tongue in cheek request, though if someone felt strongly about querying the honesty of the adverts then the information might enable them to confirm, or refute the ambassador’s party ads.
Still, if someone has put themselves out enough to write requesting the information, even if only on the grounds of curiosity, then why should they not receive the information?
When the act was brought in it was known there would be costs, embarrassment and some inconvenience to those bound to supply the info, they can hardly complain now.
No - This looks suspiciously like the top of a slippery slope, possibly given a good shove, by the ’Right Honourable’ Gents & Ladies, wanting to keep their expenses out of the public eye and no doubt avoid too many ‘vexatious’ questions about them…
He cites examples such as, a request to the Foreign Office on the amount spent on Ferrero Rocher chocolate, or one on how many eligible bachelors there were in the Hampshire police. Also how the BBC, has received over 90 enquiries from one person concerning the amount of expenses paid to senior staff.
He plans to outline new guidelines, highlighting the right of public bodies to reject "vexatious" requests and argues "A charter for responsible FoI requests will help to prevent requests which have no serious purpose or value, impose disproportionate burdens or have the effect of harassing the public body."
All couched in reasonable terms and language.
So who decides if it is “Vexatious”? If you don’t get a satisfactory answer the first, or second, time? Will you be able to ask again, or will you be branded as a loony, or a pest and thus safe to be ignored?
What next – A government database of pests to be refused under the Act?
It beats actually being put in a mental institution the way they were said to in the good old USSR I suppose…
How long before you have to justify why you want the info, make a case for it?
Probably the Ferero Rocher was a tongue in cheek request, though if someone felt strongly about querying the honesty of the adverts then the information might enable them to confirm, or refute the ambassador’s party ads.
Still, if someone has put themselves out enough to write requesting the information, even if only on the grounds of curiosity, then why should they not receive the information?
When the act was brought in it was known there would be costs, embarrassment and some inconvenience to those bound to supply the info, they can hardly complain now.
No - This looks suspiciously like the top of a slippery slope, possibly given a good shove, by the ’Right Honourable’ Gents & Ladies, wanting to keep their expenses out of the public eye and no doubt avoid too many ‘vexatious’ questions about them…
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
The poverty line
The children's Charity Barnardo’s is complaining that the UK Government will fail to halve child poverty in Britain by 2010, as promised - unless it spends an extra £3.8bn of taxpayers money over the £1bn already set aside for tax credits in the 2007 budget.
Apparently the charity's research indicates there are one million children who should have been lifted out of deprivation by the end of the decade who will still be in poverty. They warn that while the number of children living in poor families fell slowly but steadily in the late 1990s, progress has now stalled.
Terrible, you may think – Poverty, in Britain, in this day and age. Why is the State failing in this?
Basically because they have set themselves a much more difficult task that it seems.
A household is considered to be officially below the poverty line if they are living on less than 60% of the UK’s median (average) level of household income. These figures look at incomes in Great Britain, after housing costs have been paid. Curiously the EU apparently use the same measure...
So the Poverty line is actually a moving target then. For a start, every time interest rates go up a few more people slip below this poverty line.
Let's conduct a thought experiment - Imagine you were to take every single household, that is officially poor by this definition and were to supplement their income, so it that was £1 above the ‘poverty line’.
At the end of the exercise, when you re-did your sums, you would almost certainly find that you had only actually reduced poverty by a tiny amount and that the official poverty line had become slightly higher.
You would probably have to repeat the process quite a number of times before you had evened out household incomes enough for this measure to show a significant drop off.
Another problem with this measure of poverty is that by redistributing benefits, or services away from the very poorest (who are so far below the poverty line they are likely to stay poor anyway) to those just below the poverty line (who have the greatest chance of being moved over the line), politicians can reduce the poverty rate - Hurrah! - even while deepening the deprivation of the worst off - Oh!
So now you may have an inkling as to at least one possible reason why Chancellor Gordon Brown decided to reduce the basic rate of income tax from 22% to 20% but extended the new basic rate to cover the old 10% Starter rate, more than doubling taxation on the first £2000 of taxable income in the last budget - Busted!
Apparently the charity's research indicates there are one million children who should have been lifted out of deprivation by the end of the decade who will still be in poverty. They warn that while the number of children living in poor families fell slowly but steadily in the late 1990s, progress has now stalled.
Terrible, you may think – Poverty, in Britain, in this day and age. Why is the State failing in this?
Basically because they have set themselves a much more difficult task that it seems.
A household is considered to be officially below the poverty line if they are living on less than 60% of the UK’s median (average) level of household income. These figures look at incomes in Great Britain, after housing costs have been paid. Curiously the EU apparently use the same measure...
So the Poverty line is actually a moving target then. For a start, every time interest rates go up a few more people slip below this poverty line.
Let's conduct a thought experiment - Imagine you were to take every single household, that is officially poor by this definition and were to supplement their income, so it that was £1 above the ‘poverty line’.
At the end of the exercise, when you re-did your sums, you would almost certainly find that you had only actually reduced poverty by a tiny amount and that the official poverty line had become slightly higher.
You would probably have to repeat the process quite a number of times before you had evened out household incomes enough for this measure to show a significant drop off.
Another problem with this measure of poverty is that by redistributing benefits, or services away from the very poorest (who are so far below the poverty line they are likely to stay poor anyway) to those just below the poverty line (who have the greatest chance of being moved over the line), politicians can reduce the poverty rate - Hurrah! - even while deepening the deprivation of the worst off - Oh!
So now you may have an inkling as to at least one possible reason why Chancellor Gordon Brown decided to reduce the basic rate of income tax from 22% to 20% but extended the new basic rate to cover the old 10% Starter rate, more than doubling taxation on the first £2000 of taxable income in the last budget - Busted!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
