UK government plans for ancient woodlands get the axe

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

It is a great relief to learn from the Independent that Ex-Environment Secretary Owen Paterson's proposed biodiversity offsetting scheme has been dropped by the Government.

The scheme would have allowed developers to build on ancient woodlands provided that they plant new trees elsewhere.

As most of us know, I am sure, a newly planted woodland would take hundreds of years to mature into a biodiverse area, so this was a ridiculous proposal from the outset.

This was the selfsame Minister of the Environment who also stated that there was no problem with the HS2 high-speed train line cutting through ancient woodlands as the government would simply move those woods to elsewhere.

This also, once again, brings to the fore the uselessness of the Forestry Commission for it should have immediately advised the then Secretary of State that his idea was absolutely ridiculous in the same as way his statement about moving woodlands. But they did nothing. Another proof that Britain needs a Ministry of Forests whose task it is to protect and oversee the proper management of forests and woodlands.

© 2015

Forced adoption and forced foster care of (Gypsy) children in UK

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

London, UK, June 8, 2014: Gypsies steal children people have always been told as children and that was not that long ago. In fact, however, it is not the Gypsy People stealing children but it is their children that are being stolen from them, by the state.

Much like in the days of Pro-Juventute in Switzerland when the children of the Yenish and Sinti were taken from their families by this “charity” in their program “children of the country road” (Kinder der Landstrasse) the governments in the UK (and other EU members states) has embarked on removing Gypsy children from their families and having them forcibly adopted.

It is, however, not only Gypsies and their children this is happening to. The children of others are also being taken away and given away for adoption, without the parents being accorded any rights, but it would appear that the targets are primarily Romani children, and more often than not with no real reason for doing so.

But with fostering and adoption now becoming privatized and thus a business you have to get the kids from somewhere so that people, more often than not childless couples, can adopt those.

In addition to that what easier way of destroying a People and a Culture than taking away the children and placing them away from the influence of the Culture and Traditions of the People you wish to remove from the face of the earth as a people. It is so simple.

In most instances there is a total news blackout on any of those cases and thus the media cannot report on what is happening while in other instances the media chooses to ignore what is happening as it does not fit with the image of the particular people that it wants to portray. In the same way that some papers in the UK have only reported and headlined a very small segment of the statement of Pope Francis I during a recent meeting of the Catholic Church's Mission to the Gypsies in Rome.

And where are the Romani political representatives, or at least the organizations that make such claims, such as the International Roma(ni) Union? As usual very conspicuous by their absence, and the same goes for the ERTF. Their silence speaks volumes as does that of other human rights organizations.

© 2014

'Parliament makes decisions, not the people'; Peers say

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

This is the way the British government, the Commons, the Lower House – also thinks. The people cannot be trusted with referendums, whether on the EU or other, or with anything else. Parliament, the master, knows what is best for the slaves.

Just by way of explanation Peers is a term used for collectively for the members of the House of Lords, Britain's Upper House in Parliament and Members of Parliament are those in the House of Commons, the Lower House or Lower Chamber.

Therefore we can see that the British system is not a democracy, and that not even by a long shot. In a democracy the people rule or, if there is a parliament, which there should not be, then all power emanates from the people, and neither is the case here and nor do the parliamentarians in Britain think that it should be so.

As far as they are concerned is that as they are elected we, the people, have thus surrendered to them our power and after they are “in office” we must shut up for the next four or five years, depending on the length of the parliamentary term.

In fact, this is very well laid out in the German term for voting, that of “Stimme abgeben”, which could be translated as it should be, and not into casting one's vote, as “to cede one's voice” or to “give up one's voice”, and that is exactly the way it is being seen by our so-called representatives, namely that once we have taken part in the game of elections we have given our voice to them and have to remain silent as now they have the say on our behalf.

Make no mistake, folks, that is exactly how it is and pans out and it is for that very reason that they do what they had planned anyway, regardless of what they stated in their election manifesto. They know that the voters have abdicated their power, their voice, to them in the election process. The only ones who do not know that fact are the voters, the electorate. They have no idea as to what games are being played and that so-called democratic elections are but for show to keep them, the people, quiet and in the belief that they have a choice of how they are being government, while being told that they are free people.

And don't think that it is any different in other so-called democracies. Not one iota except, maybe, in Switzerland being an exception where plebiscites have to be held for any major decision, almost, to be taken by government. But in all cases there is still the state and the government and that is where the problem lies.

© 2014

Government council cuts are punishing the most vulnerable

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Mass scale cuts to council budgets will lead to the death of local government and heap punishment on the most vulnerable, as ministers announce a further 2.9 per cent cut in funding for 2014/15, warns Unite, Britain and Ireland’s largest trade union.

Many of the country’s most deprived councils will bear the brunt, with Liverpool city council facing a 62 per cent cut in funding between 2010 and 2017. Local government workers, who have already suffered a £3,544 cut in pay since 2010, will be pushed deeper into poverty as they are forced into a jobs versus wages tussle.

Unite, Britain’s biggest union, fears that by 2015 there will be little local government left after a 43 per cent real terms cut in funding in the five years since 2010. Cuts of this scale will lead to the complete demolition of services including care for the frail and elderly, children services, support for vulnerable families and youth services.

Despite the huge pressures faced by councils, Unite appeals to councils not to slash before thinking, but to work with unions to find savings and to protect service quality.

Responding to the government’s provisional local government financial settlement, published on December 18, 2013, Fiona Farmer, Unite national officer, said: “This government is presiding over the complete meltdown of local services. Ordinary hardworking people are, again, the ones being battered by the loss of the services they rely on to educate and care for their families.

“This is a shamelessly political settlement which rewards wealthy Tory councils and punishes the less well off.

“In some of the country’s most deprived areas, including the prime minister’s Oxfordshire constituency, services such as care for the frail and elderly, support for vulnerable families, children’s centres, sexual health services around teenage pregnancy and Connexions services, have already been shut or are threatened with closure. The wealthy Tory shires continue to escape relatively unscathed.

“The government will be gambling on the public blaming local councils for service cuts, but it is wrong; the public understand where the real blame lies - at the door of the communities and local government secretary, Eric Pickles.”

Unite is Britain and Ireland’s largest trade union with 1.4 million members working across all sectors of the economy. The general secretary is Len McCluskey.

In spite of warnings such as this by the leaders, so to speak, in the labor movement the British Labour Party has stated that it will continue, should it win the 2015 elections, which cannot come too soon, with the austerity measures and cuts.

While it is true that the finances of the United Kingdom are rather in disarray and the country is heavily indebted to the bankers of the world there are savings and cuts that can be made elsewhere and which would be real cuts in expenditure and not to vital services.

Alone abandoning the stupid idea of a nuclear deterrent which is laughable in the extreme would save billions upon billions which could be better used elsewhere and that is just for starters. Abandoning ideas of wars in countries where we have no business of being would be another great saving that could be made, not that the generals and warmongers would like this idea and neither the industries whose “vital interests” might be abandoned if we did.

The brief of our armed forces is the “defense of the realm” and the realm, last time I checked, does not include Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or any other country. It also does not include Bosnia and such like. It ends with the territorial waters of the United Kingdom and may, if we so want, include Gibraltar and the Islas Malvinas and other so-called dependents.

Let's look at savings there and to creating a peaceful country that regards the sovereignty of other countries and to a green economy which could create masses of jobs and give us energy and food security and much more.

© 2013

Plastic bag 'tax'

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

In October 2013, after the gods only know how long, it was announced that the government has at long last decided to follow the lead of some other countries by introducing a charge, albeit a paltry 5 pence, which is about 8 cents Euro and about the same in US money, for plastic bags from 2015. Better late than never I suppose but one can but asked what (a) has kept them that long and (b) why will it almost two years before the levy will be introduced.

Now, in a way that only politicians can, they appear to have completely confused a simple issue by – firstly – making biodegradable bags exempt, which will clearly do nothing to prevent bags littering our environment, and – secondly – by exempting retailers with fewer than 250 employees.

The problem with biodegradable shopping bags is that they are still plastic and the biodegradable part to this is rather a questionable one as well. Very much in the same way that we keep hearing abut bio-plastic, that is to say, yes, plastic made from bio-matter. And even if it is so-called compostable and biodegradable (only in commercial composting plants, however) it is still plastic and much of the plant-based plastic in fact is neither compostable nor anything else but PET. But, according to some in the recycling industry, cannot be recycled in the same way as oil-based PET.

But back to the issue of the plastic one-time shopping bags. The first thing is that the bags should be at least charged at 10 pence at least in order for people to remember to bring their own reusable shopping bags and secondly, as said before, I cannot understand why (a) so-called biodegradable bags are exempt and retailers with fewer than 250 employees. I am totally lost as to what difference the number of employees of a retailer makes to the use of shopping bags.

Once again inconsistency, incomprehension and confusion reign! In fact, I believe the government has, once again, lost the plot (if ever they had any).

© 2013

92% of Britain is undeveloped says Lord Wolfson

Therefore we must develop at least some of the the countryside into garden cities.

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Obviously the noble Lord does not eat and thus does not need farms nor does he breathe and thus does not need air purified by trees. Assuming however that he does eat it is the countryside whence the food cometh and we cannot carry on assuming that someone else can provide the food, as seems to be the believe also of some ministers. Some of them, not so long ago, stated that we do not need farming in Britain as we can buy all our food from abroad and yes, it was a member of the Conservative Party.

The countryside provides food, employment, housing and environment and while you can improve all of those it does not mean that you substitute one for the other.

Lord Wolfson, head of the clothing retailer Next in the UK and a major contributor to the Conservative Party says that we need more new garden cities and they must be built on countryside land as the countryside is underdeveloped and empty.

We trapped ourselves in tight urban areas giving ourselves the impression that there is no countryside left, he said, and continued to say that the reality is that 92% of Britain is undeveloped but we don't just see it.

Lord Wolfson then further stated that there is an enormous amount of land that could be developed into beautiful garden cities, not urban jungles. According to him those areas of the countryside are empty and unproductive and of no use. I would say he needs to get out more and get a life.

Those areas would be more bio-diverse than the agriculture that they would be replacing.

Lord Wolfson is offering a quarter of a million Pounds to whoever comes up with the best plans for a new garden city (or should that, maybe, read cities) in Britain.

Whilst the majority of the country may be undeveloped that does not mean that it should all be developed,. But that appears to be something that Lord Wolfson has in mind.

A lot of the agriculture and the countryside management that goes on in the countryside is a good use of land and we must away from the feeling that just because there is no development going on there.

Lord Wolfson does seem to be alluding also that the 92% of the underdeveloped countryside is available to be exploited for development which is a total fallacy and as stupid as the people who he showers money upon.

Garden cities could have a lot to offer as far as housing is concerned as long as they are planned and developed in line with the needs of the countryside and the environment. Otherwise you just create another block of unsustainable housing.

However, when it comes to housing we do NOT need more homes. We have more than enough empty homes and properties that could be turned into homes all over the country. In fact, there are enough homes to house the homeless of this country, those of Eire and of one or two other smaller EU nations and still have room to spare.

The idea of garden cities fail in the provision of housing as they would be built to the detriment of the existing settlements, no doubt, and thus the existing settlements would be left – as derelict often and with all the problems that they have – that is to say as they are in favor of new developments and this is not sustainable in the same way as the idea that the last Labour government floated of Eco-Towns was another one of those silly ideas that would have benefited builders and developers and no one else.

Instead we must redevelop our existing settlements and make them more livable. We must build viable communities and while garden cities are one way a much better way is to actually turn our existing settlements into such viable communities. Build on what we already have rather than design and build new settlements in the middle of nowhere with the need for all the infrastructure and everything else that goes with it. Making the existing communities more sustainable and making them into places where people actually want to live (and work).

We have already once had so-called garden cities but some of them were basically Legoland of the real world designed on the drawing board and then plonked into the countryside with little or no consideration of the people in the countryside and also for the people that were moved to those new cities.

The problem with garden cities or so-called eco-towns plonked into the countryside is that they also need infrastructure, such as water, gas, electricity and roads leading to them and would add even more to the commute that we are – I thought – want to get rid off.

In order to do the latter, however, we must either move the jobs to where people live or have people move again to where the jobs are and, while living in the country is great, if you work in the city that's where your home should be also. Leave the countryside and the living therein to those who actually also work there.

Britain does not have a housing crisis. That is utter baloney. Britain has an empty homes crisis and many of those homes are, in fact, local authority ones that are being earmarked for destruction and “redevelopment”, as in the case of the Ocean Estate in Stepney and the Robin Hood Estate in Poplar. And those are but two examples of many that could be listed.

Thus we do not need new garden cities and ideas such as those – except in order to make money for the builders – but we need to have the existing homes refurbished and the areas in which they are located made more livable and improved. A much better and cheaper option and also a much more environmentally friendly one.

It is very worrying that some of the members of our government have absolutely no idea as to the way things are in real life and that also includes the one who, when challenged as to the ancient woods that are threatened with destruction in the path of HS2 states that there is nothing to worry about. The government would just move the woods. In which parallel universe do those people actually live?

© 2013

If you do not work you shall not eat

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

According to information that is going through media outlets apparently the latest attitude of the Tory Party is that people who do not work shall also not eat (and, as far as some reports state, this may include children).

We have known ever since Thatcher that the Tories want to bring “Victorian values” back to the country but that it was going to include those measures very few have only foreseen. By now it would appear it is not just Victorian values but Old Testament values and ways.

It is no wonder that they are seen as the “Nasty Party” and do deserve this image and description to the T. Very few of their Members of Parliament ever as much as stand up for the common man and woman in the street and the environment.

They only seem to be interested in giving as much support to the 1%, the ones that gave the country, and the world, the Great Recession in the first place.

And the successors, as they believe themselves to be, of the Whigs, the Liberal Democrats, who would not understand, it would appear, since they are in the coalition with the Tories, what liberalism actually means, appear to be happily allowing it to happen.

Under this Con-Dem coalition Britain is beginning to slip back towards not just the Victorian era but much further back towards around the Middle Ages if we are not careful.

Given only half a chance the debtors' prisons and workhouses will be back in no time and we are already headed for government slavery. Feeding the homeless is already being outlawed and they are also intending to make rough sleeping a crime. In other words being homeless is becoming a crime in Britain and not just in Britain alone. Other European Union countries are walking the same road right now also.

© 2013

The unemployed to be forced to do unpaid work

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

People in the UK who are receiving benefit whilst being unemployed will be forced to do full-time unpaid work according to recent leaks to the media.

The unemployed will have to do unpaid full time work or lose their benefits, in a bid to reduce the amount spent on the jobless.

Under proposals especially people who have been out of work for a long time will be expected to earn their benefits by working for firms unpaid or in the community.

While it has been suggested adopting a new US-style ‘work for the dole’ scheme will help to reduce Britain’s large benefits bill this appears to be more “Arbeitsbeschaffungsmassnamen” as in Germany before World War Two for the unemployed which were repeated in Germany after the German Democratic Republic had been annexed in the last decade of the last century.

It is expected that those who fail to find jobs through the Government’s main back to work scheme – the Work Program – will have to work for their payments, sources have said.

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, is reported to have said: “It’s not acceptable for people to expect to live a life on benefits if they’re able to work.” But people in the Department for Work and Pensions described the reports as "pure speculation". However, they did not deny that the plans are being considered by ministers.

Mr Duncan Smith added: “The welfare state rightly provides a safety net for those out of work. But in return, jobseekers must do everything they can to get into work, that’s only fair.”

A report published by Policy Exchange, a think tank, suggests the Government should pilot the scheme for specific jobseekers, particularly those who fail to find a job through the Work Program after two years of support.

Policy Exchange also suggested older jobseekers, who have not had a job for six months should be included, as should those under 25 with little or no work experience.

The Government has already carried out pilot schemes which suggest some claimants would choose losing their benefits over doing unpaid work.

This workfare scheme, as operated in the USA, could be very serious also for those that are in work as companies and especially hard-pressed local authorities could use this to do away with permanent staff, replacing them with free workers from the lines of the unemployed.

The problem is, the way I see it, as to what work they are going to do? Either we are going to end up with people losing jobs so that the unpaid workers (slaves) can be used or they have to invent work for them. The unemployed will also not get any minimum wage; they will only receive the benefits that they have been getting until now. I can see this being used to undermine workers' rights and wages. In addition to this it will be much like what was done in Germany under Hitler to get the unemployed into work, building roads and digging ditches by hand.

The Tories have always had, at least ever since Thatcher, wanted to get Britain back to “Victorian values”. Thatcher did not complete succeed in this venture so Cameron & Co. are trying to make sure it happens. In fact, the aim seems to be to go back further than the Victorian era even. Almost to the Middle Ages seem to be their target with debtors' prisons and workhouses.

© 2013

UK government to force Internet content blocking

The British government is trying to force search engines and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block content and websites

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The claim by Whitehall that it is predominately aimed at porn sites and especially child porn to prevent also and especially children accessing such materials does not hold water as, first of all, accessing child porn is a crime and secondly that no one can believe anymore what they say.

The “for the good of the children” claim has become a mantra under which the freedoms of the individual are being eroded by increments, in the UK and the USA. Blocking porn is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

So-called extremist websites are also in the cross hairs of the government's gun sight and we can take a sure bet that many survivalist sites and such like will also be considered and affected. And, no doubt, alternative media sites such as Russia Today and many others.

In the end we will only be allowed, for our own protection and that of the children, obviously, to access such sites only as are approved by the powers-that-be.

The British and American governments keep harping on about freedom and scream blue murder when the Internet and social media are being censored and restricted by China, in Arab countries, and so on while, at the same time, they are aiming to do the very same at home. The term “double standards” does not even come close to conveying it properly.

While they insist that the Internet must not be censored – and it should not be – as far as what they class repressive regimes such as China, Iran, etc., are concerned a different set of rules are applied to their own citizens. What are they afraid of?

© 2013

Fracking will not get economy growing

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

In response to the announcement the British Geological Survey on the quantity of shale gas underneath Lancashire on Thursday, June 27, 2013 Greenpeace said, and rightly so, that it could lead to a surge in exploration activity across the UK, bringing increased traffic, noise and flaring to communities, while threatening house prices.

According to Greenpeace research almost two thirds of England has been earmarked for potential fracking, and local opposition, particularly in Conservative constituencies, is expected to be fierce. Local hostility in Balcombe, West Sussex is already delaying the fracking process, with the Campaign to Protect Rural England warning of a massive backlash if large areas of countryside are 'transformed into industrial sites'.

Commenting on today’s announcement Lawrence Carter, energy campaigner at Greenpeace, said: “The idea that shale gas is going to get the economy moving again is groundless. There’s a huge difference between the amount of gas in the ground and how much fracking companies will be able to commercially extract. Even if they do manage to get some gas out, the fracking industry’s own research reveals that production wouldn’t reach meaningful levels until well into the next decade. If shale is the answer to Britain’s economic malaise then the Chancellor is asking the wrong question.”

He continued: “Analysts from energy regulator Ofgem, Deutsche Bank and Energy UK are lining up to say that UK shale gas won’t bring down bills for households or businesses. Even the company with the biggest stake in Lancashire shale gas, Cuadrilla, privately admits that it won’t reduce energy prices. It’s alarming that the Chancellor is staking his growth strategy on an industry that doesn’t buy his hype.”

Last month Greenpeace recorded a senior member of Cuadrilla, the company planning to drill in Lancashire, saying the impact of fracking on energy bills would be “basically insignificant”. Its spokesman also said locals in Lancashire were right to be concerned about “well integrity” and increased traffic.

Polling in the Chancellor’s Tatton constituency revealed a majority are opposed to fracking, with widespread concern about noise, disruption, falling house prices and earth tremors. Even more interestingly, 12% of those who voted Tory at the last election said they’d be less likely to do so again should fracking get the go ahead.

Responding to the government ‘s proposed financial package to communities affected by fracking, Lawrence Carter said: "Whilst communities should receive benefits from local energy development, a cash package won’t alleviate concerns about fracking's impact on water supply and house prices."

Once again we can see that this government is lying to the people to get its way and they will do so on any matter that will benefit them and their cronies.

On the same issue Friends of the Earth said that shale gas is not solution to UK's energy challenges.

Friends of the Earth Energy Campaigner Tony Bosworth said: “Shale gas is not the solution to the UK's energy challenges. Its potential has been hugely over-hyped and there's little evidence it will drive down fuel prices.

“Extracting shale gas will have a significant effect on local communities and our environment - the more that's extracted, the bigger those impacts will be.

“The North could be at the heart of Britain's green energy and economic transformation, but not by turning it into another 'gaslands'.

“We need a 21st century energy revolution based on efficiency and renewables, not more fossil fuels that will add to climate change.”

But we have also learned in the speech of the same day by Treasury Secretary Alexander that the government is going to be subsidizing the building of a new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point rather than looking properly, following examples in countries such as Germany, at renewables – all kinds of renewables – to meet our energy needs and towards a target of reducing our energy consumption.

In Germany several communities and areas have gone – basically – off-grid, including areas with industry, and those communties have become net suppliers to the grid rather than consumers. Still, however, the UK government keeps telling us that the lights would go out would we put our money on the renewables card.

While nuclear may be considered a low carbon energy source it seems to be forgotten how much carbon is being generated in creating the plants in the first place. And also forgotten seems to be the environmental footprint of the production of the uranium to fuel those reactors. It is not a clean energy source; not by a long shot even, and that is without even considering the issue of nuclear waste. The brown envelope manufacturers are definitely having a field day with the amount of those things that seem to be needed presently in which to package the bribes that are being paid to politicians and government officials. From the tune being played we can see only too well as to who is paying the piper.

© 2013

Green Deal flop - new figures released

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Commenting on the release on Thursday, June 27, 2013 on the first official statistics of take up of the Government's flagship Green Deal scheme for energy efficiency, Friends of the Earth's Warm Homes Campaigner Dave Timms said that the figures are a disaster but not unexpected. “The Green Deal's potential”, he continued, “has been absurdly overhyped by Ministers to cover the fact they didn't have a comprehensive strategy for insulating the UK's cold, expensive to heat homes.”

To which he added: “Saving energy is vital for making energy bills affordable and tackling climate change, but with only four households taking up loans since the Green Deal began, the Government's efforts are falling embarrassingly short.

“Lower interest rates, more incentives and tough regulations on landlords to improve the worst insulated rented homes would all increase the take-up of energy efficiency measures.

“The fuel poor especially have been left in the cold by recent cuts to Government energy efficiency schemes, which must be reversed.”

For the figures on the Green Deal visit DECC's website.

The “greenest government ever” still has not delivered despite all the promises and all the hype that accompanied the statements that were made when the Con-Dem coalition took office.

In fact, instead of real green measures all this government has done is supporting those that are responsible for pollution and the gases that contribute to an acceleration of climate change.

The feed-in tariff was reduced more and more even though the people not even received, in the UK, unlike in Germany and other countries, the wholesale price of electricity of the energy they fed into the grid from their solar or wind installations. A proper return on investment might have caused a great uptake as would have enforcing the legislation that said that no planing permission be required any more for solar PV and small wind installations.

While Whitehall said that it was supposed to be a right to install such local authorities still demanded the planing process and more often than not refused permission.

The “greenest government ever” simply never delivered on its hyped up promises and still does not. It rather supports an energy industry that will leave our children and grandchildren and their children and generations to come a dangerous legacy in the form of nuclear waste.

We do not need a new government; we need a new system.

© 2013

British MPs to get up to £20,000 pay increase, possibly

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

With the country under severe austerity measures and workers, especially those in the public sector, having their wages frozen and having to accept pay cuts, at least in real terms, the greedy Members of Parliament are prepared to vote themselves a pay increase of up to £20,000.

Such an increase in their pay is equal to or more than what many a worker, and especially here those in the public sector such as nurses, council workers and such, makes in a year – before tax and other deductions are made.

Those self-same parliamentarians, who tell workers that for the sake of the country they have to make sacrifices and tighten their belts, will quite happily vote themselves an increase in their own salaries equal to or above the annual before tax salary of many a worker.

“We are all in this together” was the slogan with regards to the recession and austerity and it is true; they are all in it together to take the people for a ride and bleed them dry.

It does not matter what political color they are either. Blue, yellow, red and the rest will all give themselves a nice pay raise while cutting the wages of those who really do the work on the frontline.

We must demand from our politicians that they learn to live on the same amount of money as the average skilled worker, which is a little more than that increase they wish to vote themselves, so that they learn what it is like to live in the real world.

Proof that we don't need a new government but that we need a new system.

© 2013

Tories about to declare war on unions with new strike rules

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Trade unions could face fresh curbs on their ability to call strikes under plans being considered by the Conservatives.

Surprised I am not... Here we go again is also a term that comes to mind...

Was it not Maggie Thatcher who was hellbent to destroy the Trade Unions and their power and she was of the same party. The party has not changed and is still anti-working people, anti-working class. As far as the Tories are concerned Thatcher left unfinished business as she did not manage to destroy the Unions entirely. That is what they are now aiming to do, no doubt.

A new plan by the Tories of the current Con-Dem coalition would make strikes illegal unless at least 50 per cent of union members voted in a ballot. But, general elections are legal even if less than 40% of the electorate vote. Different rules, it would appear, for different people and causes.

Right-wing Tory ministers are pressing David Cameron to include the proposals in the party’s next general election manifesto, so it is understood and this planned legislation would make industrial action illegal unless at least 50 per cent of union members take part in a strike ballot.

Supporters of the threshold – who insist the potential policy is “under active discussion” in Downing Street – believe the plan would prove highly popular with the voters. For voters it would be best to read Tory voters and those that are being whipped up by the right-wing gutter press.

The proposal, however, has divided opinion around the Cabinet table, with the Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, understood to be among the leading opponents.

Ministers are also examining new steps to crack down on the Public and Commercial Services union, representing civil servants and local government staff, which is regarded as the most militant in Britain.

The introduction of a threshold has been championed by Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, following clashes with transport unions in the capital. Mr. Cameron has been careful to avoid ruling the idea out, although has stressed he had no plans to press ahead with the move which, in Whitehall speak, which is related to Washington speak, means that they are seriously considering just such a move.

While it had been thought that the proposal had been put on ice in recent months, it would appear, according to rumors, that the policy is being seriously considered within Downing Street.

There is thought to be no prospect of any new trade union legislation while the Coalition is in office – Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Business Secretary, has said publicly that he would oppose it. Mr. McLoughlin, a former trade unionist, has also argued in private against the move. His opposition has proved important because, as Transport Secretary, he is in the forefront of dealing with industrial disputes.

Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, who deals with public sector unions, is also believed to be skeptical about the wisdom of the threshold idea but Tory sources confirmed the issue is being discussed as a possible commitment in the party’s next manifesto. One of the attractions of the policy for supporters would be to put pressure on Ed Miliband, the present leader of the British Labor Party, to state whether supported the move and cast a spotlight on his party’s union links.

It is understood that George Osborne, the Chancellor, and Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, are sympathetic to the introduction of a threshold, although neither has spoken publicly on the issue recently. Other suggestions are altering the law to allow agency workers to cover for staff who are on strike and increasing the notice period unions have to give to employers before industrial action begins.

Trade union legislation has remained largely unchanged since the 1980s, when the Thatcher Government outlawed the closed shop in the workplace, introduced secret ballots for strikes and banned secondary picketing. In an attempt, I hasten to add, to destroy the Trade Unions in Britain altogether and hence the Tories belief that there is unfinished business to deal with.

This proposed legislation should show everyone where each and every individual Tory minister and MP stands when it comes to it and it is time that the people, for most really should regard themselves as working class are they not most wage slaves like everyone else, woke up to the fact that their rights are under threat.

Each and everyone who is a salaried worker, whatever his job, is a wage slave and thus has benefited from the work of the Trade Unions which has often been in blood.

Without the Unions we all will head back to the conditions of Dickensian England, of that we can all be sure.

© 2013

The Big Society

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The coalition government in Britain under the Cameron-Clegg leadership is talking about the “Big Society” all the time ever since they formed the government after the general election in 2010.

I do not say that they were elected to govern as neither of the parties got a real workable majority, but that is a different issue.

Talk about the “Big Society” is increasing more and more in the beginning of 2011 as the government is cutting is cutting back services on a national and local level due to spending cuts and the attempt of tackling the deficit in the national coffers. The Cameron-Clegg coalition hopes that volunteers will step into the breach here where government services will no longer provide. And this in a country where successive governments have always treated the people as imbeciles and children.

Successive British governments have always detested empowering the people of the country, be this in creating their own habitats and homes or in running their own affairs. And on top of that all comes that the inherent secrecy culture in the UK governed by the Official Secrets Act 1911 Section 2 which is used as a blanket to cover everything possible that should never have been included.

So, what am I saying, you ask?

Personally I will have to be really convinced that what I am hearing David Cameron, the Prime Minister, say on this matter is also what he actually thinks and means. Britain just has a bad track record of empowering the grassroots regardless of what party has been in power. This is why I am so very sceptic here as far as this “Big Society” idea of his goes.

I am also concerned that it will be (i) done in a rather top down approach of “we need you to do this” and (ii) that those volunteers will be, intended, primarily, to run charity versions of what were government services.

Not that, probably, there is anything wrong with the latter in some fields, say in citizen advice, after school facilities for kids, and such. In fact, there are, more than likely, masses of services that would be better run by charities and volunteers, in both care, etc., and value for money.

Volunteers are, in general, enthusiastic as regards to what they do and highly motivated and care for the task; not something that could be said of every government worker in general. Many of the latter are just there, it would seem, to draw their salary and that's it. Clock in in the morning and out at night and home.

I am not saying that the “Big Society” idea and concept is bad. On the contrary! I think it is more than time that the people did get away from the notion that the government has to do everything for them.

In the centuries past when government was far away people did just that and they also looked out for one another. That's what community was and is all about. Over the last century or so, however, government has become ever bigger and ever more pervasive and invasive and people abdicated responsibility to the governments, local and central for this and that, in the same way that the abdicated and delegated the upbringing of their children to the state in the form of the school system. People have come to look to the state to do for everything short of wiping their behinds.

When a neighborhood is, say, full of litter residents immediately complain to the council and demand that that is immediately cleaned and cleared. This litter is down to everyone who live in that neighborhood and thus should be the responsibility of the residents but such a thought would, in today's society, never enter their minds. “That's what we pay our taxes for,” is the usual outcry.

The grass verges in our roads needs cutting, they say, never even even considering that all they'd need to to is to take their mower to the verge in the front of their homes when they cut the lawn. Some do, I admit, but the great majority just scream at the council.

It is these little things that anyone could do, and would do, if but someone would start is and set the ball rolling that make a neighborhood a community.

The one thing that bothers me with David Cameron's “Big Society” idea is that it is government putting it forwards and it was not conceived at the grassroots level of society and could, therefore, be seen as a means for government to band aid the cuts.

What worries me, aside from the afore, is that despite all the rhetoric from Cameron and Clegg, the “Big Society” will not really empower communities and individuals to do things in their way and to do the things that are neede where the people live.

Real empowerment of people is something the British government has always been afraid of as it would mean people actually doing and being able to do things for themselves without government having the control.

If this is going to happen and they really want it then I guess the fires have gone out in hell and winter has arrived down there. I find that about as likely as Silvio Berlusconi becoming a communist.

Can you just imagine the people of the UK running their own affairs. This is a total anathema to the modern state and is something that politicians detest because it undermines their power and control over the people.

It would be really nice if we could reduce the state and its interference in our lives to what it really only should be but I am not about to hold my breath. Blue may suit me by way of color for clothing and such but not in face.

In addition to the state relinquishing the power that should not be its I am hard pressed to see the majority of the subjects of Her Majesty to actually do things for themselves, even if they had the “right” to do so, and for their community and for society as a whole.

Most are way too much in this “entitlement society” mode believing that they are entitled to this and that as a right and that they have to do nothing for themselves. After all, they say, we pay our taxes so therefore we are entitled to this all.

The idea of the “Big Society” – I just wish Cameron & Co had chosen a better term – have been implemented for years already in “alternative” communities up and down the country and around the globe and in so-called Transition Towns. It can be done but it cannot be decreed from the top like the “solidarity” idea in former Soviet Russia and the former German Democratic Republic (East Germany), for instance, though, to a great degree it did work, the “solidarity” thing, I mean. Many people of the former German Democratic Republic hunger back to that now.

Despite the Ministry of State Security (Stasi), etc., the GDR had a sense of community, it would seem, in most places, even in blocks of housing, and people looked after each other. I put this also down to the fact that there was no “keeping up with the Joneses” going on as things were, basically, all the same, and theoretically, everyone only could have the basic stuff that could be bought. Not that that always worked and was thus but... I digressed.

While, as I have said, I do like the very concept of the “Big Society” of empowering the people I have serious reservations that (i) this is going to work by having Whitehall tell us and (ii) that people believe that the state is there to do everything for them and that it is what they pay taxes for.

The point is that we should be (allowed to be) doing things for ourselves and not expect the state to do everything for us. But there are two sides here as well in that government has been telling us all the time to look to the “authorities” to do everything for us and the other one that, as I have said already, because they pay taxes, they are entitled to have everything done for them by the state.

The idea of the “Big Society”, sorry about the name, I didn't coin it, and the things it is supposed to achieve, I think, is good and the aims are great but I am not sure as to, and that is what I have been trying to say here, whether the government can get the people enthused about it.

If it would have been something that had originated in a broad demand from grassroots level then my scepticism would be less to nonexistent but as it comes, more or less from the top down and seen to primarily address the existing charities and such, I do not think that the people will follow. I hope I am wrong, but...

© 2011

The United Kingdom admits that it will miss its 2010 CO2 target

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The British Government has admitted it will miss its own target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent from 1990 levels by 2010 by a large margin.

New projections from the Department of the Environment (DEFRA) put CO2 emissions in 2010 at only 15.5 per cent below 1990 levels, and note the target had always been intended to be stretching.

The UK Climate Change Program annual report to parliament said it expected emissions of CO2, thought by many, though not by me, and even experts of the highest caliber, to be the main culprit in global warming, the latter which has stopped and plateaued out about 7 years ago and has not moved since, to be 26 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

"The Government has clearly failed to take the action needed to meet its own targets for cutting the UK's carbon dioxide emissions," Friends of the Earth spokesman Martyn Williams said.

"This unhappy situation is made even worse by the fact that these targets are out of date and massively underestimate the overall level of cuts that is needed."

However, all eyes are screwed to “CO2” emissions and reduction of same in order to stop and reverse the effect that they once referred to as “Global Warming” and now, probably because they all know very well but are still misleading the public, as “Climate Change”.

Yes, the climate is, probably, changing and the Earth is going through cycles of this every so often. There is enough evidence of this in records alone over the last 2000 years let alone further than that. We cannot, of that I am certain, stop it or reverse it. What we must do it to learn to live with it and then live with it.

The Government has prided itself in taking a global leadership role in combating climate change, taking strong measures at home and keeping the issue in the forefront of international negotiations.

But its Climate Change Bill that will set a legal target of cutting national CO2 emissions by at least 60 per cent by 2050 is well behind schedule in the parliamentary process and recent reports have shown the Government slipping from its own agenda.

The Government has even admitted that it has been badly underestimating national emissions, noting that if carbon embedded in imports from China were included then far from falling they would actually have risen sharply.

A report issued by DEFRA ahead of last week's G8 summit in Japan said CO2 emissions fell by 5 per cent between 1992 and 2004.

But it said they actually rose by 115 million tonnes or 18 per cent over the same period when the carbon emissions linked to imported goods were included in the calculation.

Way too much energy – pardon the pun – is being expended on the effort to reduce CO2 emissions; something which is not go to stop nor reverse climate change. The change is happening and it is continuing to happen and it is very doubtful that we can do anything about stopping it.

Having said this, however, I do agree with the fact that we must get away from fossil fuels and the reason is manifold. Not the least being, obviously, the general pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels. In addition to that there is the simple fact that oil, natural gas and coal are running out or have run out, depending where one looks.

So, we are right to look at alternative energy and recycling and all what we are doing and we must intensify that. But, we must stop the stupid notion of CO2 or the reduction of it can stop and/or even reverse climate change. Instead we must look at how we can live with it, for learning to live with it we must. We have no other choice.

We must also reduce our impact on the environment and this not in any way as and effort in regards to reversing climate change for we have just established that it is happening and it is natural and there is probably nothing that we can do against it.

So, we have to learn new ways. New ways of growing things, new ways – and some are not even new at all – of transportation, from personal to the transportation of goods and people, etc. Which also means that we MUST manufacture goods at home again instead of importing them long distances from places such as China; countries with dubious records on standards and labor laws.

Time for a real change...

© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008

Green products 'should be the norm' – UK Government

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The British government has said that green products must become the norm on Britain's supermarket shelves and that the most harmful products need to change. I assume that one can but agree. However, one can also but wonder with what draconian laws they are going to want to enforce this.

The most harmful products, maybe, need not change; they must be superseded with products that do the same job but that are not harmful or, if need be, maybe, that are a lot less harmful.

Ministers made that call as they published updates on progress with the “Waste Strategy and the Sustainable Products and Materials Programme”. Oh dear, now there is a mouthful. I presume that it will have an acronym like WSSPMP or such.

Waste Minister Joan Ruddock said that government and industry were working together to make the whole life cycle of products and services more green.

"We know that people are concerned about their effect on the environment, but they do not get to see the full picture of what goes into producing the goods they buy and they do not see what happens after they have thrown them away," Ms Ruddock said.

"It needs to be easier for people to buy products that will save them money and reduce their impact on the environment, and that's exactly what we're doing.

"There are real savings to be made. Through this action to green the products and materials we use, UK households could save £5 billion a year on their bills." That is billion as in English billion and not American billion.

She added that the so-called “credit crunch” was making it even more important for businesses to use resources more efficiently.

Now it would be very nice if those green products actually would save people money and would be safer. Most of the time the green products cost an arm and a leg to buy and, as we can see with CFLs, have themselves an inherent danger, namely that of mercury.

When it comes to some products of the green range than may, nowadays, be cheaper on the supermarket shelves, such as Ecover dish washing liquid for instance, then there are issues there too. Firstly Ecover has been linked to high level a dangerous substance – namely Dioxane 1,4 – in it and secondly I personally have found that it cannot stand up in cleaning power and in value for money against a leading general brand of washing up liquid. The other one, though a little more expensive, of a non-green kind (though its color is very green) requires less of the liquid to use and works much more efficient with less irritation to my hands than with Ecover and, as one uses less, one saves money. So, where the savings are going to come from that Ms Ruddock mentions beats me.

The Sustainable Products and Materials report, which sets out progress with the piloting of ten Product Roadmaps, including the Milk Roadmap, was launched earlier this year.

It also includes details of government initiatives such as the “agreement” with retailers to take inefficient light bulbs off the shelves by 2011.

I really must say I like the term “agreement” here. Do we call that whitewash or greenwash, for the truth is that there is a law coming into effect that will make it illegal to sell incandescent light bulbs of the aforementioned inefficient kind and only CFLs will be permitted to be sold (and used) after the law comes into effect. So it is not so much as an agreement as a requirement on shops to remove the incandescent light bulbs from their shelves and from sale.

That is the way Britain tried to tackle all the environmental issues, with laws and threats and such. Same as in regards to waste reduction and recycling. It just does not appear to be possible to offer incentives for people to do “the right thing”, as is the case in so many other countries.

The summary of progress with the Waste Strategy revealed that the amount of residual household waste has dropped and household recycling is increasing.

Is this indeed the case or is it just a case that the bins are emptier, simply because fortnightly collections have been started and people fly tip rubbish rather than putting it into the bins.

It also showed the amount of commercial and industrial waste being sent to landfill has continued to fall and less biodegradable waste is finding its way to landfill.

The parks and open spaces, and farms, I should think, have seen a significant increase in fly tipping of ordinary household waste, including biodegradable waste, and especially also the so-called “green” waste, that is to say, garden refuse. The latter because in many ares the councils have been “forced” to take away the free collections of garden waste from householders and people now either have to bring such waste to the municipal refuse tips or have to pay a fee to have it collected.

Not a very green alternative that having to take it by vehicle to the rubbish dump as that often involves waiting in long lines for and hour or more with the engines of the cars left running.

Ministers said further work is needed to identify whether an increase in reports of fly tipping is a result of more fly tipping or improved information from local authorities to its Fly Capture national database.

This, no doubt, means a lot of wasted money for long-winded studies to then claim it is due to better reporting. That is a load of poppycock.

As someone who is involved with parks and open spaces on a daily basis I can vouch for the fact that the incidences of fly tipping, from small to large, are on the up and up, and I am certain that they are going to continue to rise the more we see the fortnightly collections and the removal or reduction of the other collections.

M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008