Haiti aid must hurry to avoid humanitarian catastrophe.

By now everybody is aware of the devastating earthquake which has claimed an estimated 50-100,000 lives in Haiti, with some placing the figure much higher. Aside from the tragic loss of life, however, is a serious situation which could soon begin to gravely affect the living. The US 82nd Airborne has arrived in Haiti but securing the airport took some time and the sheer scale of destruction is making mobility limited. The inevitable consequence, as in any city hit by such a huge blow is the outbreak of looting and rioting. In a nation barely functional even at the best of times, any semblance of public order is, at best, superficial. The collapse of any form of normality is therefore hitting Haiti harder and sooner than in other disaster areas.

Today President Obama promised a total of 10,000 US troops to assist the rescue effort and to distribute much needed medical supplies and food. One particularly unpleasant side-effect of the breakdown of basic sanitation will likely be the spread of disease, and with an estimated 3 million displaced this could lead to suffering and death on a biblical scale. What is clear is that the President is making a firm commitment to ensure that the US response to a disaster so close to its borders is not as lacklustre as its response to the last major disaster in the region, which occurred within the United States. There is a lot you can do to help too, however. I urge all readers who can afford it to make a donation here:

http://www.google.com/relief/haitiearthquake/#utm_campaign=en&utm_source=en-ha-na-us-sk&utm_medium=ha&utm_term=haiti%20charity

I’ll continue to blog regarding the situation in Haiti as more becomes known about the true humanitarian and political impact of this crisis.

From apparent chaos a new unity is born

The past 24 hours have represented, perhaps better than any I can remember, the ability of the tabloid press to blow a story out of all proportion in search of sales and ratings. Seemingly desperate from a series of slow news cycles, the speed with which the Daily Mail and ITV News were able to take some toothless rumblings from a couple of discontented also-rans and present them as an attempted coup d’etat has surprised even the most jaded political commentators.

Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt are truly not worthy of the ‘analysis’ and careful examination of their plot – if it is even worthy of that label – which has been afforded to them by even some normally sensible publications. The Guardian comment on how ‘Hewitt and Hoon tried to stir cabinet discontent with Brown’s leadership into an open rebellion.’ I really believe they did nothing of the sort. The Hewitt/Hoon letter was, at best, an ill-conceived expression of half-formed thoughts by a couple of political lightweights looking to make a final splash before exiting, to everyone’s great relief, professional politics for good. To suggest that it represented any kind of serious challenge to the leadership of our nation is preposterous and a fallacy upheld only by the likes of Cameron and Clegg, seeking to score cheap political points by exploiting the gullibility of people without understanding of the Machiavellian nature of Westminster  and by journalists looking to make a cheap buck.

As the Prime Minister rightly asserted, this whole incident has been a colossal storm in a teacup. There has been outrage amongst many loyal to Gordon Brown who see this as an unnecessary distraction and a gift for the Tories. Whilst, undoubtedly, this may provide the Conservatives with a short term boost in the polls, the long-term effect may well work in our favour. By launching such a pathetic attack on the leadership now,  Hewitt and Hoon have made absolutely sure that no other plots will be capable of succeeding in the next 4-6 months, leaving a clear run for the election campaign to be launched by a party completely united behind our leader.

Of course, a cynical observer might note with interest the false resignation rumours from Tessa Jowell’s office which immediately preceded the seemingly ill-prepared attack on Wednesday. Was this a sting operation masterminded by Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson to flush out potential traitors now, rather than risk a costly scandal in March or April, seriously damaging Labour’s election prospects? It is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility. What we do know for sure is that the outcome of this scandal, contrary to what The Daily Mail might like to suggest, has been to leave our party stronger than ever; united and utterly dedicated to fighting to make sure that the next government is a Labour government and to making sure that Gordon Brown is re-elected as Prime Minister of this country with a record Fourth term for Labour.

McCartney is rather missing the point.

Sir Paul McCartney, a man whose music I enjoy and whose political campaigning so often hits the nail on the head, today commented on the need to cut down on meat consumption in a bid to stop global warming. He’s campaigning for a ‘meat-free Monday’, one day a week when people would eat no meat in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is all very well and good from a western, middle class perspective but the truth is that the United Kingdom represents only a tiny proportion of world meat production. Indeed, much of the meat we eat is not British grown at all, and reducing our consumption of it would only cause wastage and raise prices as foreign suppliers find themselves unable to survive on a reduced market. Even for the market we can control, here in the UK, farmers are the last group whose livelihoods we should be damaging after a decade of foot and mouth, bluetongue and other catastrophes. It is an industry we should be nurturing and supporting. Indeed, by buying British, and aiding the production of food in Britain, we reduce the need for imported goods in the first place; a move which does make a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Eating less meat is a well-intentioned, but ultimately naiive way of solving the climate crisis. Besides, people like meat, people are never going to be convinced to stop doing something they enjoy. Closing down all nightclubs would massively reduce power consumption on a Friday and Saturday night; twice the amount of days affected by McCartney’s plan! That doesn’t make it the right solution. I happen to like nightclubs, just as I happen to like meat! I had a very good pigeon breast starter and pork main last night, and I’m far from the only person who wouldn’t even contemplate giving that up, especially when its potential effect is questionable. Some of you may be, but your efforts will be in vain without the ultimately impossible support of the vast majority of the world’s population.

Apart from anything else, the scale of any potential impact from radically reducing meat consumption in the UK would be a token at best. It is a similar approach to those who believe we can solve global warming by turning our televisions off standby at night, by driving hybrid cars (which incidently produce more Co2 in their production, assembly and delivery process than a Range Rover!) and by freezing in your own home because turning the thermostat down five degrees will save power. Let me stress, ALL of these actions do help, but ultimately they are a half-measure; an excuse to make us believe we are fighting to stop global warming and save the planet. It is very popular, especially amongst the circles of the political elite to focus solely on what individuals can do to help themselves on this issue, and very unpopular to take the position I have adopted in this blog, but the reality is that none of these personal measures will ever be enough to avert disaster unless we begin to take some tough decisions on a much wider scale now.

A huge and very profitable market has been built up around climate change and the myth that the actions of individuals alone will be enough to make change happen – it allows industry and governments to take peoples’ minds off the true scale of the ecological changes we could be facing. If we want to make a difference, we need to start changing the production of power at source. This means pushing development of clean energy production methods such as wind, solar power and hydroelectric generation. Reducing our usage of energy will never be enough – instead we need to make the energy green in the first place. There is also a need for a new generation of nuclear power stations; the truth is that nuclear is far from a perfect solution, but there is simply not enough capacity to produce all of our energy from renewable sources, and nuclear provides a mostly safe, carbon-free option.

One area where individual actions can certainly make a difference is in micro-generation, with a number of energy providers now offering schemes which allow people to sell some of their homemade power back to the grid. In some cases, you can even turn a profit! If everybody makes the relatively small capital investment to install solar panels, or a wind turbine or perhaps a ground source heat pump, we really can start to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

As we head towards Copenhagen, we need our leaders to start getting serious about climate change and start committing to a rapid, severe and most importantly of all worldwide effort to reduce climate change before it is too late. For the first time, the United States are prepared to talk seriously on this issue, and therefore for the first time, these proceedings have a point. Let us hope that the world can unite behind a common goal, begin a huge geopolitical paradigm shift, and we can all get on with everyday life without fearing for our future, kidding ourselves that we’re making a long-term difference when we change our lightbulb.

CWU Strike may be terminal for Royal Mail

The CWU today confirmed its intention to begin strike action on a national scale. This is a strike which must, at all costs, be avoided if we are to save Royal Mail as we know it. Public trust in postal workers is reaching new lows, with many understandably unconvinced by the placards brandished by Royal Mail workers claiming that these strikes are not about pay, whilst just a month ago Dave Ward declared “modern pay and conditions” to be a central aspect of the campaign.

Complaints about working conditions are not without justification, but if the CWU seriously hopes to achieve a compromise with Royal Mail, it must decide precisely where its grievances lie and be prepared to accept the reality of the situation. The truth is simple: the CWU must either negotiate an acceptable deal with Royal Mail or face its total demise at the hands of market forces. At present, its leadership is simply not being realistic: the world is still in the midst of a financial crisis and weak companies will not survive; let alone those with no customers.

It seems as though many of those who voted for strike action do not appreciate the gravity of the situation. Prolonged disruption to the Royal Mail will lead to its customers permanently switching to other suppliers. Already, a number of major retailers have announced their intention to take their custom elsewhere in order to maintain service. These retailers will not be coming back to Royal Mail. It is an organisation which must adapt to the modern era if it wishes to have any long-term future whatsoever.

Whether the solution be a co-operative, incorporation with the Royal Mint, a Worker’s Bank or part-privatisation, the CWU needs to find a solution immediately, or Royal Mail staff will be looking for new jobs by Christmas. It is imperative that Royal Mail does not follow the suicidal path which it seems to be leaning towards, or it may be ultimately responsible for its own destruction.

Tories prioritise the repeal of anti-hunting legislation.

As if we were in need of further confirmation that the Conservative party is not the changed, ‘compassionate’ movement that David Cameron claims it is, it was today revealed that senior Tories are secretly and actively planning to reintroduce hunting with dogs if they form a government after the next election.

The sickening proposals centre around the creation of a so-called ‘Hunt Regulatory Authority’, which would in reality be little more than an extensive private members club. The Conservatives excuse their plans by highlighting the weaknesses of the legislation upholding the hunting ban, yet their intention is certainly not to replace it with more comprehensive laws, but rather to hide the regulation of hunting behind a smokescreen of bureaucracy. (Ironic, isn’t it?)

The Countryside Alliance, alongside senior lawyers, have produced a blueprint to return to Britain the hunting of stags, foxes and other animals. Senior Tories William Hague and Edward Garnier have expressed their support. Indeed, the group behind the proposals also includes the backing of Samantha Cameron’s stepfather, Viscount Astor. Stephen Lambert, of the Master of Foxhounds Association spoke with remarkably false conviction of ’some ghastly drama – the hounds accidentally catching a fox in some inappropriate place – it’s not against the law but it most definitely brings hunting into disrepute and the HRA would act’.

This all rings incredibly hollow to those of us who were pleased to see the end of this barbaric ‘tradition’ under a Labour government. It seems as though the Tories have scarcely bothered to spin this story, such is their smugness on this issue. Like a bunch of Etonian schoolboys, gleefully rubbing their hands at an opportunity to sit at the principal’s table, they stand with their pre-drafted legislative agendas. Same old boys’ network. Same old Tories.

Cameron’s Opportunism Sinks to New Lows

One of the major stories of the past few news cycles has been the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie plane bomber, from custody in Scotland. Megrahi was convicted of the murder of 270 innocent people. The move has attracted strong condemnation from many around the world, including FBI Director Robert Mueller who described it as ‘a mockery of justice’. Tory leader David Cameron jumped on the bandwagon by appealing to the public’s sense of empathy, arguing that Megrahi ’showed no compassion’ and so therefore compassion should not be shown to him.

All of this is hard to argue with, until one remembers that this was a decision taken not by Westminster and certainly not by the Prime Minister. It was a decision for the Scottish Executive, and a decision they alone were empowered to make. Indeed, Ian Gray has already made it clear that it is not a decision Labour supported, nor is it one he would have made if it had been in his power. David Cameron, yet again, has sought to exploit the ignorance of the public over due process and spin an event – in this case a tragic and terrible event – into an opportunity to make political capital. This is an utterly despicable example of why Cameron represents the sort of dirty politics the rest of us wish to forget.

Another angle one might wish to consider in this case is Cameron’s political desire to be seen as close to the United States. Fortunately, it seems unlikely that this desire will be realised since President Obama has made his distaste for Cameron abundantly clear already. As he adequately put it, ‘Blair was “sizzle and substance”; Brown was “substance”; Cameron was merely “sizzle”.

Mr President, we couldn’t agree more.