Millionaire Tory Lords vote against HWFs.

TAX CREDIT CAROL

On the tenth week b'fore Christmas 
My newsman bought to me
Ten Lords a-claiming
three'undred pound a session
though they are loaded
while ^voting for^
Osborne's little scam
half-baked plan
wretched little man
to rob thirteen hundred 
from the poor.

11 millionaires who voted to cut poor people's tax credits A roll call of Britain's wealthiest people tried to save George Osborne's cuts - and could claim £300 each just for turning up.

HWF=Hard-working families

The Alternative to Austerity (in 132 words)

I went to the People's Assembly in London yesterday.

It is very clear indeed that Osborne's austerity is not only doomed as a cure for the deficit and the recession, but is also totally unacceptable because of its effects on people.

A head of steam is building up over austerity that is likely to lead to demonstrations, strikes and civil disobedience. It is not impossible that, in time and given unwise and repressive policing, disaffection  caused by austerity could lead to fatalities, civil disorder, attempts at revolution, and a coup.

In order to avoid this, we need a mass non-violent movement, rallying under the flag of Democracy, Equality, Sustainability,  that can convince the nation and its rulers that there is a sensible alternative to austerity.

In order for this to work, we need an alternative to austerity that everyone can understand.


So here goes:

1. There is a real budget deficit (gap between Government's income and spending) problem that needs to be addressed.
2. Osborne's austerity approach, cutting spending, is failing because it slows up economic activity and reduces income from taxation.
3. The alternative is for Government to invest in the real economy, mainly in energy conservation, house-building and renewable energy industries. This will save money, stimulate economic activity, and raise taxes.
4. If borrowing for this investment is deemed unacceptable, Government can obtain the money
   (a) by taxing rich individuals and corporations, and
   (b)create the necessary money  through Quantitative Easing.
5. In addition, the Green Wage Subsidy can bring about full employment, stimulate economic activity, raise morale, nudge the economy in a green direction, prepare the ground for Citizens Income, and bring in about £10 billion/y into the UK economy - all at trivial cost of about £35 million a year.  

So there we have it in a nutshell. The alternative to Osborne's austerity argument.

Obviously this is only the core of a far more complex argument, but I put it out at this length in order for it to be available to the general public. 

Compass has developed the argument at more length in its Plan B+, and Positive Money UK covers the QE aspect.

What is Thatcherism?

Decided this would be better than another pic of Mrs T

Like many others I have turned off radio and TV in despair at the 24/7 paean of praise for Margaret Thatcher (interspersed of course with a "balancing" sprinkle of comment from the other side) that is being pumped into our homes.

However, to balance the obsession with the person, we need to look critically at the ideas of the woman.

So - what is Thatcherism?

First, she was a conviction politician, one who operates out of  fundamental belief, rather than by trying to find out what people want and then trying to please them. Once she decided on a course, she would continue on it, come hell or high water. This was her strength, and it gained admiration even from her opponents, but it was also her undoing, because she persisted with the Poll Tax long after it was apparent to everyone that it was completely unacceptable.

Her fundamental belief was Individualism - the doctrine that the individual person is the absolute origin of all political reality. Cambridge defines individualims as "the idea that freedom of thought and action for each person is the most important quality of a society, rather than shared effort and responsibility" Macmillan gives: "the belief that the freedom of individual people is more important than the needs of society or the government".

The philosophical problem for individualism is that it falls at the first hurdle, the scientific definition of our species. Homo sapiens is a social animal, not a solitary animal. Therefore any political ideology that is founded on the individual being more important than the group is bound to get into difficulties. It is impossible for everyone to behave in a perfectly free manner. Moreover, human beings, whether viewed as individuals or as societies, are not self-existent beings. We are dependent on our physical and biological environment for our existence, which is why both individualism and socialism are inadequate ideologies.

There is another problem with Thatcher's individualism. In practice, the freedom applies only to the successful, the rich and powerful. The unfortunate, the poor, the weak do not benefit from individualism - they get beaten down, and blame and obloquy is piled on them. Thatcher's individualism is for the 1%.

Flowing from individualism come the usual list of Tory political ideals:

• Free Market Fundamentalism - the notion that men (yes, mainly men) acting out of self-interest, competing against other such self-interested men for money, which is universally seen by philosophers as a low value item, will produce the best of all possible worlds. Not such a brilliant idea really. 
• Deregulation follows from Free Market Fundamentalism. Thatcher's deregulation of the City, uncorrected by NuLabour,  lit the fuse that exploded the world financial markets in 2009.
• Free Trade - no tariffs, subsidies, or quotas. This is clearly pie in the sky stuff. Apart from anything else, the ecological imperative demands that the carbon market is controlled for a start. To her credit, Thatcher, as a chemist did see the problem with CFCs, and helped to bring about their ban, but in doing so she contradicted her own ideals.
• The notion of the Small State (which leads to misery as people are thrown out of public employment and services are cut, and will probably lead to corruption).
• Monetarism - the notion that Government must control the money supply in order to avoid inflation. Basically, this idea crashed in the 1990s when the money supply doubled every 10 years, without appreciable inflation. 

There was a bunch of other stuff lying about in the bottom of her handbag - nationalism, Victorian values, populism obtained propaganda from a skewed press - but this quick review of her ideology shows that it lacks bottom. Thatcher's individualism is pretty insubstantial.

Insubstantial, but prevalent. It is no mere coincidence  that "Tony Blair, a PM" is an anagram for "I am Tory Plan B". Miliband's Labour is still cowering under the shadow of her ideology.

But false ideologies cannot prevail forever. Thatcherism, like its author, will one day succumb to mortality. Our job is not to express personal hatred against her, but to make sure that we are ready with a coherent, worked out, ecological/green replacement to her failed philosophy.

Big Green Week was great - but needs to connect with the economy

Over the last week, I have been to several talks at Bristol's Big Green Week. It has been good, listening to thinkers and do-ers in the field of bringing mankind to its ecological senses. In fact, yesterday, after listening to Fiona Reynolds and Dan Pearson talking about Nature Deficit Disorder - the malign effect of separating humans from nature, and the benign effect of re-connecting them with nature - I actually felt the stirrings of primary optimism in my chest.

Primary optimism is distinct from my chosen optimism. A few years ago, I was suffering one of those times when you wonder if it is all a waste of time, that our rulers are hell-bent on exhausting the planetary resources in the name of profit, and that there is nothing that we can say or do to affect this process. At that time, I decided to deliberately choose to be optimistic, to keep looking for solutions, because the alternative was not just pessimism and inactivity, but also personal depression.

But yesterday, I realised that there are many many people who are quietly and successfully beavering away at making a better world, in every aspect of life, and that this is cause for optimism. I also realised that we have moved on immensely since I began doing green politics. Of course, it is happening much too slowly, but it is happening. Peoples' minds are changing, and only the immutable ideologues and free market fundamentalists remain fixed in denial, as is demanded by their root belief.

So the Big Green Week was good. But it has one big flaw - its disconnectedness from the current political situation. Apart from one reference from Caroline Lucas, I heard nobody dealing with the economic crisis that is engulfing the UK, Europe and the world.  At the same time, yesterday, in the session with Caroline Lucas Patrick Curry and Polly Higgins, chaired by Jonathon Porritt.

In this session, the question was raised, on the platform, of why these issues, so obvious and so important to us, the middle class intelligensia, are of so little interest to the mainstream? Why, knowing what we know, do we not act? How do we raise the popular energy to make the transition to a green, sustainable economy? How do we change the culture, generate a groundswell of opinion that supports a way of living that does not wreck the planet?

I believe that the answer lies in solving the problem of unemployment by creating good work in the green sector of the economy. Philosophically, this means understanding that true work means increasing the order in our surrounding world, applying ourselves to oppose entropy. In practice, it means facilitating work in these areas of the economy :


1 energy conservation
2 renewable energy technologies
3 energy efficient goods manufacture
4 pollution control technology
5 waste minimisation
6 repair
7 recycling
8 water management
9 sustainable agriculture
10 forestry and timber use
11 countryside management
12 housing - new building and refurbishment
13 improvements to visual environment
14 public transport
15 education and training
16 counselling, caring and healing
17 community work
18 leisure and tourism
19 innovation, research and development
20 any business which passes a certain threshold in its environmental audit.

In political terms, it means changing the benefit system so that it behaves more like Citizen's Income.

I believe that these changes, as part of a broader anti-austerity package, an economic Plan B, This should be raised as a standard that everyone who disagrees with austerity can rally around.

By showing that ecology is about action, not just words, we can transform peoples' understanding of what Nature means for them. By showing that household incomes can rise, that people can actually create a happier world, and get paid real money for it, we can get a hearing.

I was unable to get this point across in the one brief question that I was able to put at the beginning of the week. At present, I am incubating a plan to actually create, with others, a pilot of the Green Wage Subsidy.  This intent is again down to what I heard at a Schumacher lecture in the Big Green Week. Tim Smits said Just Do It. He also said that he is angered by negative people - the people who just love to say it cannot be done. In future, I am going simply to ignore these naysayers. They do not matter. What matters is that we should take practical, non-violent, action, to make the situation better.

Those Occupy Demands in Full

The media know - or should now - what the #Occupy movement is against: Poverty, cuts, inequality, the lack of opportunity, the scandalous bonuses and immunity from prosecution for the banksters who wrecked the economy, the overweening power of the corporations, environmental degradation and 1001 other gripes.

The media want to know what solutions the protest wants. The protesters say they are working on it. The media want answers now - despite the fact that it is blatantly obvious that the Governments do not have any answers.

I offer here my own solutions, derived mainly from Green Party policy. The Green Party has been working for the past 30 years on the precise problems that move the protesters.

So here are my personal solutions. I cannot claim to speak on behalf of the #Occupy movemnt, nor even fully for the Green Party, but believe that the measures here capture the aims and aspirations of both. They do not claim to be complete, but they are a reasonable start, and hopefully will form the nucleus of an emergent Manifesto for the Occupy movement.

The aim of these changes is (a) to fill the hole in the finances not just of the UK, but of all nations, (b) to pull the economy out of recession in a Green way, and (c) to bring about more equal and sustainably prosperous economic and social conditions.





1. Close all tax havens & loopholes, globally.

We live in a globalised economy, and if follows that therefore should be a global tax structure. This will not be uniform, to allow countries to adjust rates to suit local conditions, within set limits.


The aim here is to stop the perennial threat made by big corporations in response to taxation by one country to relocate to a country with a more lax tax regime.This will enable us to roll out change #2:




2. Tax the rich


The richest 1% are taxed at far lower rates than the lowest 99%. They siphon the wealth out of the nations in which they operate into tax havens and offshore accounts. Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK estimates that in the UK these total £120 billion lost from the economy, and the Compass report In Place of Cuts proposes specific changes that will net £40 million a year - enough to pay off the interest payments on the National Debt.

Greg Philo proposes a one-off 20% wealth tax on the richest UK citizens which could offset the National Debt entirely. Radical, but radical problems ask for radical solutions.

Note that taxing the rich solves two problems: the deficit and national Debt, and also inequality, which causes many expensive social problems, as shown in Spirit Level.


3. Future Quantitative Easing to go preferentially to the Green Bank.

QE is necessary when banks are failing to make loans, but the first two bouts of QE have been ineffective in their aim of getting banks to lend again, because they have been paid into the banks, who have used it to try to fill the enormous vacuum in their accounts caused by the credit crunch and sovereign debt crisis, and to pay themselves bonuses.

By directing QE to the green investment bank, the new money will stimulate energy conservation and renewable energy generation through the Green New Deal.

the effect will be:

1. job creation 
2. taking households out of fuel poverty 
3. reducing our energy imports, thus reducing the budget deficit 
4. assist in achieving our CO2 reduction targets 

4. Introduce a Green Wage Subsidy


This allows organisations operating in the green sector of the economy (i.e. those whose effect is to benefit society or environment) to take on new employees from the Job Centres without those new employees losing their benefit. It transforms the benefit into a subsidy for the green sector. This stimulus to the economy comes cost-free, because the benefits would have been paid in any case. It acts as a precursor to the introduction of Citizen's Income.

5 . End private banking's monopoly on issuing money through debt.

It is no wonder that the UK and the world is drowning in debt, since money is created through debt.

Positive Money has set out a plan to remove this monopoly from private corporations and make money creation work to the benefit of the people. They even provide a draft Parliamentary Bill to bring this about.


6. Rein in the multi-national corporations.

Multinationals have more economic pswer and influence than many countries. At present they have many privileges in law, including legal personhood and limited liability for shareholders. This post shows how their wings can be clipped.

7. Regulate the money markets.

The present crisis can be traced to the deregulation of the financial markets, and the growth of a totally unregulated and uncontrolled derivatives market, parts of which are nothing more than Ponzi schemes according to the economist Minsky.

The first change is to separate retail and investment banking.

A comprehensive review of the derivatives market is required.

8. Impose a Tobin Tax on financial transactions, and earmark it for poverty projects.

Tobin, Robin Hood, or Financial Transaction tax is a tiny levy on each currency transaction that will both put a brake on destabilising currency transactions, and also generate huge sums in revenue that should be directed to poverty reducing schemes.

9. Cap donations to political parties

Since it is by massive donations that wealthy corporations buy influence with political parties and distort the democratic process by having more influence on elected politicians than the people who elected them. Instead, parties whose aims are consistent with law and open democracy must be funded out of general taxation in respect of their service to democracy


10. Impose limits on salary ratio of lowest/highest remuneration.
This ratio represents an immediate measure of income inequality. It can be controlled, and the Coalition Government has taken steps to introduce it in the public, but not the private sector.

11 Reform the credit ratings agencies.

These tiny organisations have a disproportionate influence on the economy. They failed to spot the causes of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and some of their operatives appear to have indulged in insider dealing during the US downgrade.


12. Cancel Trident and reduce military spending worldwide.
In a global economic recession, there is an increased risk of war, as happened in the Great Depression of the 1930's. At the same time, all governments need to reduce spending. There is a choice available to avoid the risk of war, and to save money.

13. Provide enough affordable housing
Housing is a basic human need, and in providing housing, the government is relieving stress and ill-health in a more cost-effective way than putting homeless families in temporary accomodation. In doing so, it will be stimulating the building industry.

14. Stimulate local economies and communities.
In practicing community living and co-operation, the #Occupy movement is pioneering local community living and - dare I say it - realising Cameron's Big Society. Many organisations, notably the Transition movement, are working to the same end.

15 Stimulate the formation of Co-operative enterprises.

I repeat that these 12 measures are not complete, nor can they ever be complete. But these are a few necessary changes to bring about a more healthy, happy and equitable society and economy.

Compass meeting in Bristol

I went into Bristol last night to attend a meeting of the new Compass group setting up there.

"Compass enables people to go out, take action and make real change happen! We're the UK's most influential ideas and action based political pressure group with over 40,000 members and supporters across the country".

There were about 22 people there, mostly hideously white and male, as the saying goes. There were three of us Greens there, equally hideous &c.

Neal Lawson spoke well about the state the Left finds itself in after 13 years of a Labour Government that captured and substantially betrayed true Labour's ideals and aspirations. (I paraphrase)

Interestingly, discussion kicked off about the Green manifesto. Neal said the Green manifesto was clearly the best on offer at the last General Election, but pity we have only 1 (albeit excellent) MP.

I inserted the thing about the Vote for Policies poll, that put the Green policies well ahead of the field in a vote of 29,000. 

He mentioned an EU wide corporation tax, that would sidestep the objections of flight of capital if UK put in a corporation tax.  We must get global tax policies on the table for the G20 in November.

I suggested that on March 26th we should aim to press for an economic Plan B for if we get a DD recession. It is not just us calling for this: the IMF &c have said that Osborne should have a Plan B. Someone said that was "optimistic", which was a killer. Clearly, optimism is not a value for Compass.

I also suggested that the threat to the NHS might get people into the streets. There was a flicker of interest in this, but it slumped back down into the slough of despond and impotence.

I tend to speak rapidly, because of not wanting to drone on, and with animation. Which probably comes across as anger. It's just a feeling I have about my delivery. 

Basically, Compass is...well, I'll not burn my bridges here. Good luck to them in renewing Labour.

More about the Left and the youth revolution

OK, so what is Plan B for the UK economy?

Dave Cameron must be thanking his lucky stars that the youth revolution of North Africa has buried the embarrassing economic question he would otherwise have had to try to answer: What is your economic Plan B? What are you going to do if UK goes back into recession?

We all know Cameron's Plan A: Cut Cut Cut.

But there is a serious question for Cameron. If there is no recovery, if the UK economy fails to grow, or begins to shrink, Plan A is not going to work. Tax takes will fade away, unemployment will rise, the social security bill will skyrocket, and the deficit will get worse, not better.

George Soros says Cameron needs a Plan B. He says Cameron's plan cannot “possibly be implemented without pushing the economy into a recession".


US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner agrees: "rapid, drastic spending cuts are "not the responsible way" to cut national budget deficits. The  way out is through "education, innovation, and investment" . Cameron is dead against education and public investment.


There is a link between the youth revolution that saved Cameron's blushes and the youth on the streets of London and Manchester (not to mention Stroud). They have common concerns. In Tunisia and Egypt one of the complaints is unemployment. The demonstrators in London realise if they are locked out of study by high tuition fees, they face unemployment. Both sets of demonstrators resent the grotesque gap between rich and poor that is a feature of economies worldwide.

It is one thing to call on the streets for a reviled dictator to go, or for cuts to be cut. It is another thing entirely to have a robust economic plan to put in place when the dictator has jumped into his jet plane, or when the Coalition calls, and loses, and early General Election.

We need  a Plan B - a detailed, fully-costed alternative to the Coalition's programme of deep, early cuts.

Labour has a kind of plan: shallower, slower cuts. Ed Balls is talking about Plan B today, but not coming up with any ideas. This just ain't good enough. Big problems need big solutions.

The deficit is a big problem.

Every year, there is a £150 billion gap between our income and expenditure.

 < This graph (Source: HM Treasury, via economicshelp.org) puts it in context. It gives a somewhat different picture from the budget deficit hysteria peddled by Osborne on the news. Is suggests that Labour held back the expected upswing in 2004-7, only to have it soar upwards thanks to the banks in 2009.


So what is Plan B, that can reduce the deficit longterm, without cutting UK public services to shreds?

Here is the bare bones of Plan B:

1. Cancel NHS reforms (save £3 billion, save the NHS)
2. Close the Tax Havens - across the world
3. Close the tax loopholes - across the world
4. Tobin / Robin Hood / Financial Transactions Tax
5. Bonus tax, followed by international rules to restrict bankers' bonuses
6. Banking reform moving towards a fractional  reserve ratio of 50%, with the other 50% of money being supplied by Government in ways designed to increase the common wealth
7. Cut large donations to political parties from corporations
8. Cut Trident and other military white elephants
9. Continuous, grassroots amendments in the public sector designed to cause increased efficiency 
10. Investment of public money in a Green New Deal that will create jobs, save future expenditure on energy, increase spending in the less affluent sectors of the economy, close the energy gap, reduce our imports of energy, diminish the impact of Peak Oil, and reduce Global Warming.
11. Convert dole payments to a Green Wage Subsidy

These are a few measures, off the top of me head on a Sunday morning. Intelligent and well informed readership of the Mabinogogiblog will no doubt be able to supply further proposals. There are many good people working on this problem, for instance:
Richard Murphy,
Tax Justice Network
Coalition of Resistance
False Economy UK
The Other Taxpayers' Alliance
UKUncut
The Green Party

Here is a full list of groups working on this issue. I counted 33 national organisations.

It is imperative that these organisations to get together and hammer out a costed programme along the lines sketched out above.

Without a plan, demonstrations are a waste of time.
Without demonstrations, the best plan possible is just a bunch of words on a page.
By uniting demonstrations with clear, practical and radical economic plans, we can change the world.
---
PS
Here are the excellent Richard Murphy's proposals.

Cameron's Big Society Explained and Laid Bare

< 'We are a little worried about our landlord'
Acknowledgement: Walterton and Elgin Action Group. Artist: John Phillips.
For most people who take an interest in politics, one of the major mysteries of our present age is "What is Dave on about with his Big Society?"

The Mabinogogiblog can reveal that he is talking about community action.

This came up on #bbcquestiontime last night, when "Baroness" Warsi hectored us with a description of Big Society as "mucking in". She quoted the example of a local car park, cleaned of syringes &c.

I tweeted: "Ah. It means community work. Will there be funds for community work?"

@Cbrenchley, a Tory, but of the decent  Tory persuasion, responded with a series of tweets, which neatly encapsulate what Dave is trying to do:  "Mucking in means you do some hard work to make your environment better, not for pay. Take some responsibility for yourself! The point is that community work doesn't need to be state funded or state directed. Small things count, like not just clearing your drive of snow, but doing your elderly neighbours too. And the road. If enough people "muck in" the road is cleared quicker and sense of community is reinforced."

Which is fine, and something that I have practice to some extent, over the years, and could practice more of. It could be called "Small s socialism". It is an expression of the fact that we are social animals, and is a practical refutation of the absurd philosophy of Individualism, which underpins the Free Market Fundamentalism that poses a far greater threat to our democratic civilisation than Islamic Al-Qaeda fundamentalists could ever aspire to.

The voluntarism described is good, nay splendid, but it does not come about in any major way, the way Dave wants it to come about, through political rhetoric. It usually comes about s a response to a specific threat or problem in a community, whether that be political violence (e.g. Mairead Corrigan who founded the Community of Peace People in northern Ireland), or local drugs activity (cf the project in South Bristol, set up by local mums, whose name evades me at present). Scores of other instances come to mind. In my book Bills of Health, a friend was living in a high rise flat which was threatened with demolition. He said "We were transformed in an instant from a set of individuals filed away in separate boxes into a vertical village". They fought successfully to oppose the council's demolition plans. Until asbestos was discovered, which scuppered the community attempt to buy their high rise.

So a threat can bring about the social cohesion that Dave seeks.
Where is the major threat to our communities?
Well, three come to mind.

1. Traffic. 
2. Dog poo. 
3. George Osborne.

Of the three, Osborne is arguably the major threat.

Unfortunately the nature of his threat is likely to cause social disruption rather than cohesion, because Osbore's policies are specifically designed (no matter what he might say) to increase wealth inequality rather than reduce it. Dave just does not get equality. The Tories have skilfully finessed the message of the Spirit Level into a series of woolly aspirational guff.

So, I am not among the knee-jerk oppositionists who simply reject the idea of Big Society as an evil plan to replace public services with voluntary work.  Communitarianism is fine and good, and the sense of community is exactly what we need, but the big question is - how can it be fostered?

I went into this in Bills of Health. As we came up to publication, we realised the book was too long, so I had to cut out the chapter on social breakdown as a cause of ill health. That was OK, because I was unable to quantify the cost of social breakdown.

So I put the social chapter up here. Click on "social conditions" then search for "Stimulating" and you will find that the way to stimulate the sense of community.
It is to provide modest funds
(a) for a community worker, preferably chosen from the local community, and
(b) a community space. The rest flows.

Now this funding aspect will bring the Tories out in an immediate urticarial rash. An irrational rash. They are allergic to spending, because they want something for nothing, they want to reduce the deficit and cut spending everywhere. (Apart from expenditure in blowing Afghan wedding parties to lumps of quivering red jelly, and on Trident, and £3000000000 wasted on GP commissioning bolox NHS restructuring/privatisation and so on).

Osborne sees the budget as a simple exercise in sums,adding up and taking away. Especially the latter.
Osbore does not understand Investment. Therefore they will not invest even the tiniest amount of money, not even one Trident Hour (the amount of money wasted on Trident in one hour, £200,000 in 1996).

So that's what the Big Society means. Community action, social cohesion, voluntarism, all good ideas. But nothing to back it up. Hot air. Bricks without straw.

*sigh*
*tear slowly rolls down cheek*

A medley of semi-optimistic thoughts on the UK political situation.

Today's reading is taken from the Book of Proverbs, chapter 22, verse 11: As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

We have a Conservative Prime Minister again.

The family grouped around the TV held its collective head and moaned. But not me. Why not? Various reasons.

• Son Joe had taken me up in his tandem paraglider, which had put my head in a good space.
• Been down so long it feels like up to me. 
• NuLabour were a bitter disappointment and not much better than Tories ("Tony Blair a PM" = anagram on "I am Tory plan B"). 
• The Tories' cutting fanaticism might just possibly be to some slight degree moderated by LibDem fiscal moderation. 
• Dave is a decent Tory, a man whose heart is in the right place, even though his ideology is in the wrong place, but then so is Labour's and the LibDems. They all base their economics on the manifest impossibility of infinite growth in a finite system, and seek to base our national security on the threat of total destruction of civilisation. 
• Being in with the Tories may prove to be the kiss of death for the LibDems, and bring an influx of LibDems into the Green Party, to complement the recent influx of refugees from NuLabour.
• People may begin to distrust the media. Let me expand on this:

The most interesting (not to say edible) morsel that we can extract from this pile of spew is that despite having a 3:1 advantage in terms of newspaper support, the Tories failed to gain an outright majority. Which says a lot about the basic positioning of the British electorate. If we had a neutral, balanced press, the Tories would just be a minor party.

The media have a lot to be embarrassed about, if they had a conscience, but it would seem that there is a requirement to hand in your conscience on the first day of journalism school. They have spent the last 5 days presenting speculation as "news", interviewing each other, and bewailing the fact that politicians are having to negotiate with each other, as if this were the worst thing that could possibly happen. They hid the fact that this is the norm in modern democracies. Their time would have been better spent in explaining clearly the facts about th FPTP system, and how the various alternatives might work.

But they did not, and for this failure, the media do not earn respect. They do not convey news and understanding of news, they are propagandists. With a balanced media, the British electorate and government would be progressive.

That's the optimistic bit. Now for the pessimistic bit: a review of the Tories' four leading vices:

1. They are infested with climate change deniers
2. Their economic slash-and-burn policies will bring on a double dip recession
3. They support the ridiculous FPTP system
4. They would increase the Rich-Poor Gap.

 We shall see. Will the Tories bring on a double dip recession? Maybe, maybe not. If it does, people may choose not to believe them in future.

Our immediate task, as thinking and active people, is to work to win the referendum on Alternative Vote - indeed, to make sure it happens. Sure, AV is no better than FPTP, but it does lay the foundation for AV+, which would give us the proportional representation that we need.

Our second job is to rebalance the media. The only suggestion I have for starters is a law to require the proprietor of any newspaper to be published in the title banner, just as the proprietor of a pub has to be published over the door to the pub. I got this idea from Mark Thomas' manifesto, one of whose suggestions was that the Daily Mail should be required to print "The Paper that supported Hitler" on its banner.

So there we have it. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Nous allons voir. Ici, c'est merde, oui, mais merde peut etre compostee.

Tory Manifesto - one good leg, not enough for role of Tarzan

(Many thanks to Peter Cook and Dudley Moore (both in Heaven now, or somewhere) for the laff)

I did not manage to look at the Conservative Manifesto yesterday - the call of the Sunlit Wild was too strong -  but I saw well enough from the news what poor Dave would be about. Local control, strengthening the power of the local community, personal empowerment. And it is all good.

Yes, I'll say that again. Dave has a bunch of good initiatives here. He has lifted a great slab of stuff from the Green Party's Manifesto for a Sustainable Society, (now renamed as Policies for a Sustainable Society) and made it his own. Never let it be said that Green Party policies never get implemented - they do. Commentators say other parties are stealing our clothes. That's fine. Our clothes are there to be stolen.

So I like the Conservative agenda. It is a good left leg to stand on. As soon as they came in with it I thought, "That is a perfectly good leg". I have nothing to hold against against their communitarian policies.The trouble is, neither do they, as we will see in a minute.

Of course, what I have just said is highly controversial. The orthodox method of conducting electoral politics is the Knee-Jerk Refutation. Other parties, and commentators from Jeremy Paxman downwards, all do it. Politician A says Black, Politician or commentator B says white. It is like conducting a conversation with a sulky teenager. We psychiatrists have a word for it: oppositional or negativistic behaviour. It is probably an identity-formation ploy. That is one of the reasons that people are turned off by the election process.

So, fair play to the Tories for putting forward their little ideas for strengthening social cohesion. It is attractive, even though unfunded, and little problems such as a tendency to rule by the retireocracy.

But. BUT. There is a great big But. The Tory plan is doomed to failure because their economic policies will increase the RPG - the Rich Poor Gap.  How do we know this? Because they are Tories. That's what they do.  Charlotte Vere, the Tory candidate standing against Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party, put it in these terms: "We will not throw money at the problem of poverty". Words to that effect.

Wilkinson and Pickett in their revelatory, revolutionary work the Spirit Level , show that all social problems they have measured, sole exception of suicide, are worse in more unequal economies. So if Dave wants to mend our Broken Society, he will have to lower the RGP that free-market anglo-saxon economics is aiming at the community bus.  And he cannot do that, because it is against Tory "Principles".

Sorry, must dash.

A spot of bovver for the world economy: China and the US at loggerheads

Useful article by Will Hutton in today's Observer about the world economy. To summarise:
China has fixed its currency against the dollar, which undervalues the yuan. This hold the yuan low, making its exports cheap. This keeps unemployment unacceptably high (10%) in the US.Also, China is sucking in money from the rest of the world: it has foreign reserves of $2.4 trillion, and they are growing by $40 billion a month. Nice for China, not nice for the balance of the world economy.

There are two possible responses to this situation:

1 An international economic agreement,  whereby China starts to encourage domestic spending by lifting wages, allowing Trade Unions and property rights, and allowing the yuan to float, which will mean that it becomes more valuable, driving down its exports. (This Link is close, but I cannot find Hutton' source).  

In response to this, the USA, EU (including Britain) continue to borrow, (because bank lending is still down, as is always the case after a credit crisis), thus maintaining domestic demand. Thus the world economy is saved, and is able to carry on expanding forever into a finite space until the next time.

2  The alternative is that Obama slaps a protectionist tariff onto Chinese imports, which leads to generalised protectionism, which means a trade war, which could mean another world war. Lovely.

Hutton thinks agreement along the lines of (1) above is very unlikely, because it would mean the end of one-party rule in China.

Clearly, this is a very simplistic analysis, but it does seem plausible. There is a risk that the leaky boat of the world economy is about to be hit by some very big waves.

Hutton ends by asking - what is Plan B?

Here's my 2p worth of Plan B.

Copenhage Accord, two weeks on

It is nearly two weeks since the Copenhagen Accord was struck, and the best I can say about my comment now is better late than never, and maybe it is better late, rather than in a rushed comment as soon as it comes out. I am of the glass half-full persuasion, and take Cop15 as a beginning to build on. These are key excerpts from the document .

1 We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We emphasise our strong political will to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. To achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, we shall, recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change.

OK. It's a start.

4. Annex I Parties to the Convention commit to reducing their emissions individually or jointly by at least 80 per cent by 2050.

Annex I are rich industrialised nations. 80% is not sufficient, it needs to be 90%, but again, it's a start.

5. Non-Annex I Parties to the Convention will implement mitigation actions, including those listed in appendix II, consistent with Article 4.1 and Article 4.7 and in the context of sustainable development. Mitigation actions subsequently taken and envisaged by Non Annex I Parties shall be communicated through national communications consistent with Article 12.1(b) every two years on the basis of guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties.

Weak. Reporting only, no targets, but assistance from rich nations, for example with installing solar technologies will be monitored; which is sensible.

6. We recognize the crucial role of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests and agree on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions through the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus, to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries.

This is fiercely, and in my view, irrationally opposed, by many environmental groups. The challenge to them is to provide their alternative mechanism to protect the forests. I believe the key point we should aim for is to grant indigenous forest dwellers protective sovereignty over their territory.

7. We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions. Developing countries, especially those with low emitting economies should be provided incentives to continue to develop on a low emission pathway. 8. Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved access shall be provided to developing countries, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including substantial finance to prevent deforestation (REDD-plus), adaptation, technology development and transfer and capacity-building, for enhanced implementation of the Convention. The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources amounting to 30 billion dollars for the period 2010 - 2012 as listed in appendix III with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation, including forestry. Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing states and countries in Africa affected by drought, desertification and floods. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries support a goal of mobilizing jointly 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.

No detail. the £100 billion is about half of what the UN estimates as necessary. In comparison with the amounts shovelled into the banks last year, it is modest, and the disparity shows the cognitive dissonance on the part of leaders between the real world and the fantasy world of finance.

12. We call for a review of this Accord and its implementation to be completed by 2016, including in light of the Convention's ultimate objective. This review would include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal to limit the increase in global average temperature to 1.5 degrees.

This represents a failure of the hope that the Convention would be made legally binding within 6 months. 2016 is just ridiculous.

So. It's a start, and it gives us an opportunity to lobby our Governments for tighter action.
But first we need to set our own house in order, with regard to protecting the forests.

Also, we should be lobbying the Government to start taking some real action, instead of just talking. A serious building insulation programme should be in the next budget, and also a plan to make public transport cheaper and more user-friendly.

Local group questions CORWM on health issues

This is from Parents Concerned About Hinkley (Nuclear Power station) to the Comittee On Radioactive Waste Management

The only issue I have with it is the clause "have caused". It is safer to say "are associated with". Causation is the result of a long process of induction.


1 Dec 09

We wish to draw your attention to current problems with waste management at Hinkley Point A station in Somerset.



1. Magnox South’s contract does not require them to put public health safety first.



2. As a result of an unexpected build up of pressure inside the defuelled Hinkley A reactors, Magnox South installed vents into the reactor roofs. This is in breach of the 80-year reactor decay period.



3. Subsequently, radioactive gaseous discharges from these reactors have caused an epidemic in nearby coastal communities of heart attacks, brain tumours, strokes, skin cancers, kidney problems, sudden deaths. All of these illnesses have been identified among nuclear decommissioning workers:



International Journal of Epidemiology 4 March 2008.

Westlakes Scientific Consulting: Professor Steve Jones.

This large study of 65,000 men employed at Sellafield reprocessing plant between 1946 and 2002 found the risks of death from heart attacks and strokes increased with exposure to higher levels of radiation.


American Journal of Industrial Medicine, December 2007

Authors: Dr David B Richardson, University of North Carolina.

This study is of 19,000 employees of the Savannah River Site, South Carolina which has processed nuclear materials since the 1950s. It found excess leukaemia and pleural cancers among men and elevated rates of kidney and skin cancers in women, highlighting the range of potential occupational health effects among nuclear workers, especially diseases that typically take years to become apparent.



4. The two operational Hinkley B AGR reactors will close soon; what steps will CORWM take to prevent similar or even worse public health outcomes from their decommissioning and waste management?



5. Magnox South have another problem with Intermediate Level Waste on the Hinkley site. Again, as they do not have to take account of public health damage, they currently plan to use Cement Encapsulation to deal with waste from the existing ILW storage vaults. Cement Encapsulation will discharge 144 million cubic metres of radioactive gases into the atmosphere. The Polymer Encapsulation option would produce no discharges into the atmosphere but would cost more. Will CORWM insist on the use of Polymer Encapsulation? As the act of opening up the existing vaults will immediately result in radioactive discharges, why cannot the vaults be left closed for at least 100 years?



6. New nuclear build would require spent fuel to be stored on site for 160 years. This is not possible at Hinkley due to the limestone geology of the site. In view of Hinkley’s disastrous record of public health damage, there should be no new build, but if this should be allowed, the spent fuel will have to go off-site and there is not likely to be anywhere for it to go.

More on the Big Green and the Blue Meany District Council

This is a document I received from one of the BGG collective. Mendacious District Council are in black, and the BGG comment is in green. It seems to be a different version of their FAQ posted lower down.

Who has cancelled the Big Green Gathering (BGG)?
The organisers of the BGG agreed to cancel it and handed their event licence back to the council.

There were four conditions on the injunction:

The weekend was spent trying to answer the proposed injunction. The injunction itself was founded upon an untrue assertion that BGG had "threatened" to put the event on in breach of its licence conditions. if the licence conditions were not capable of being met, BGG had no intention of continuing with the event - and it was a recognition that that was regrettably the position that caused BGG to surrender its' licence: It was not the threat of an injunction. The BGG were subject to further ‘threats’ on the Sunday morning, one of them being that the landowner would be added to the injuction. We respect the farmer and his family and we would not want any harm to be caused to them.

Why has the event been cancelled?
There were serious concerns about potential public safety and crime and disorder, which the organisers of the BGG seem to have recognised they could not address in time for the event.

the licence was surrendered :

(a) because the Highways authority were being intransigent and utterly unreasonable in not giving permission for the road closure;

(b) the Fire Authority were placing unnecessary hurdles in BGG's way - which were not deemed necessary at the last festival; nor at the time of the granting of the licence and

(c) valuable time was lost, which could have been spent trying to fulfil BGG's licence obligations, but instead was spent mounting an answer to a wholly misconceived application for an injunction.

Why did the council consider applying for an injunction?

The seriousness of the concerns meant that despite days of negotiations the organisers had still not complied with some aspects of their licence and other legal requirements connected to fire safety. This amounted to concerns that public safety could have been seriously undermined should the event take place in such circumstances. Therefore the council had no other option but to consider applying for an injunction, which if successful may have forced the event to shut down.

This is just not true. Midland Fire Services were contracted by Big Green Gathering for the event and they were performing fire service duties at Womad, which meant they could not be at the Multi Agency Meeting. Midland Fire Services were due to appear at the Big Green Gathering on the following Monday before the event and there had been no criticism of the fire plan until Thursday at the Multi Agency Meeting – just six days before the event was due to start.

When was the decision made to progress with an injunction?
During a meeting between the council and emergency services at 6.30pm on Friday (July 24). However, the injunction application was not due to submitted until Monday (July 27) which gave the organisers more opportunity to address their licensing issues.

The timing of the threat of an injunction was deliberately designed to make it almost impossible for BGG to get expert legal advice in the time available and that the decision to pursue an injunction must have been made way before Friday evening 24^th July – The actual injunction was received by email at 6.54p.m. the Council were sending the solicitor copies of all the statements, draft order, application at about 7 p.m. therefore no-one could have put that lot together in two minutes.

When was the council first made aware about concerns surrounding the licence?
On July 17 we became aware there were serious issues about the licence including the confirmation that an important security company involved with the event had withdrawn their services.

Another Security Firm, Coast to Coast, was employed and the director of Coast to Coast Security (who have incidentally provided services at the Bath & West Showground) attended the Multi Agency Meeting on 23^rd July.

What happened next?
Internal investigations at the council alongside the emergency services flagged up other areas of concern. The organisers of BGG were invited to attend a meeting at the council offices on July 22 to help resolve various issues. Some issues were resolved at that meeting, but a number of issues remained outstanding. The council and emergency services had already arranged to meet with the organisers the following day on-site to ensure the outstanding issues had been resolved.

Who would have granted the injunction?
The council had prepared a case to take to the High Court where a judge would have listened to both sides of the argument and made a decision. There is no guarantee the court would have agreed with the council, but the council felt so strongly about their concerns that it had no other option but prepare for an injunction.

The Council knew that a lack of road closure order would be a breach of the licence. The Judge is not obliged to listen to the BGG – the council were meant to prepare a brief showing both sides of the argument. That is why the BGG had to seek legal advice and the council had named individuals as well as the BGG on the licence therefore we were aware that individuals could be chased for enormous costs if the judge agreed with the Council. Our lawyer was convinced that we could win the arguments bar the road closure

Did the police pressurise the council into threatening an injunction?
No, the council works in partnership with many agencies. This decision was based on advice from emergency services including the police, ambulance, fire etc. Ultimately, as the licensing authority the council weighed up all the factors and risks and made the final decision.

The ambulance service were at the Multi Agency Meeting and did not appear on the injunction therefore there were no concerns about ambulance provision. From our meetings with the police and the council, it was apparent that the police were leading the discussion.

Was the threat of an injunction a political decision?
No, this was purely based on public safety and potential for crime and disorder.

We believe this was a political decision

Why wasn't this issued sorted out sooner?
The council and other agencies have been working closely with BGG since February this year on the licence application, which was finally granted. However, there were a number of requirements that had to be completed before the event. Some of these crucial elements had not been completed.

This could easily have been sorted out sooner and there was ample opportunity to complain at the licence hearing.

Does the council not feel that this is a safe and green festival?
This is not an issue about whether it has been safe and green, but is an issue as to whether the forthcoming event would have been safe based on the fact that certain requirements were not met.

This is a complete red herring.

BGG had provision for 2 doctors on site

BGG had provision for ambulance provision and Red Cross on site

BGG had provision for Festival Welfare Services on site

BGG had provision for fully qualified medical herbalists on site

BGG had provision for400 stewards on site

BGG had provision for external trained security on site

BGG had provision for internal trained security on site

BGG had provision for a helipad area on site

BGG had provision for trained road people on the perimeter and on site

BGG has an exemplary record on health and safety

BGG had provision for a Challenge 21 alcohol policy

BGG had provision for a lost kids and kids area, with a strong child protection policy in place

The Council and the police knew all this – it was in the licence

Does the council not support the ethos of events such as the BGG?
The issue here is not about the ethos or messages this event wants to send out but about ensuring public safety during the event.

See Above

Is the council not victimising this event and those that attend?
Since BGG came to this area a number of years ago it has had significant support from all agencies in planning and running this event. Over the past couple of weeks there has been significant ongoing discussion between organisers, the council and emergency services to try and resolve the licensing issues. The organisers signed up to legal commitments associated with the licence, some of which they failed to meet, and are bound by other legislation.

Did the council not want this event to go ahead from the beginning?
The council strives to ensure that any licence application is considered properly and fairly, but it also works closely with other agencies and organisers to attempt to organise safe and well run events. We realise the potential benefit that large events create for the area and local economy. In short the cancellation of this event creates many more issues and a heavier workload for the council than if it had gone ahead safely.

We believe that the Police did not want this to go ahead. The BGG brings in £2 million to the local economy. Traders, local producers, local contractors have all lost money. The BGG had already spent nearly £200,000 in infrastructure and other costs on the BGG.

Has the council gone health and safety mad?
No. However the council has a duty to protect the public from potential harm, and concerns existed due to certain plans not being in place. We realise that the cancellation of this event will be blamed on the council by some and has had a huge impact, however if we had done nothing and a serious incident had happened the council would have been also been blamed for not acting where concerns existed.
All events however well run do have a significant potential for crime and disorder issues, however part of our role is to minimise this effect through proper licensing. We were not satisfied that this event had addressed some of those issues.

We agree that protecting the public from harm is very important but we think it that lack of a road closure order is disproportionate to the action taken

Did we have an intention of creating financial difficulties for the BGG?
No. The council would never wish to see any financial difficulties affect any local event or businesses as one of our corporate goals is to support the local economy.
The effect is not just on the BGG but many local businesses that rely on income from the BGG in these difficult financial times.
Did the council create problems with the BGG signing up a security firm?
No, we simply needed assurance from the BGG that they had security arrangements in place.

This is [economical with the truth]* as both security contractors attended the multi agency meeting and gave assurances that they would fulfil their contracts.

How much crime and disorder results from the BGG?
This is a policing issue and the BGG spent significant time working with the police on this event.

Very little compared to the number of people on site. There was an increase in tent thefts in 2007 but BGG were providing campsite neighbourhood watch and lockers for peoples valuables


This year's Big Chill, Endorse-It In-Dorset, Stokes Bay Festival and next year's Sunrise 2010 festivals are all offering ticket swaps for those who have bought festival tickets for Big Green Gathering.

*RL amendment

Bonuses: they're at it again

Well I'll be dipped in dogshit. They just don't get it do they?

The Treasury last week agreed a package worth up to £9.7m for RBS chief executive Stephen Hester, who will receive a bonus of more than £6m if he can double the people-owned RBS share price over the next thee years. "Lord" Myners grinds his aristocratic molars in impotent fury at this blatant disregard for political reality.

Network Rail defied political pressure by paying bosses six-figure bonuses. The chief executive, Iain Coucher, got£150,000 under Network Rail's long-term incentive plan on top of his basic salary of £605,000. This when a £30 billion shortfall threatens rail and road plans.

And so on and so forth, ad nauseam. The CEOs just do not get it. They just want as much money as they can get, irrespective of equity, fairness, public perception, social integration, public health or anything else. Irrespective even of whether they do good deals or do bad deals. They just want loadsamoney, and feck the rest of society. There is no such thing as society in their view, just their own individual self-interest.

From Management Today:

The starkest example ...was at Royal Bank of Scotland where, nine years ago, Sir Fred Goodwin was one of a group of directors each given a bonus cheque of £2.5m as a reward for their successful eight-month campaign to win control, at a cost of £10bn, of rival high street lender NatWest. The bonuses were to prove disastrous. Thus incentivised, these executives went out in search of more deals and ended up acquiring a whopping 24 companies over the next eight years. The final deal, completed with remarkable hubris shortly after the market had begun to go south, was the record-breaking £50bn takeover of ABN Amro.

It subsequently turned out that rather than proving a fruitful addition to the RBS clutch of nest egg, ABN AMRO egg was well and truly gone off, and was a £20,000,000,000,000 (£20billion) liability, which we the taxpayer had to pay for.

So what does this have to do with bonuses? Bonuses are individual incentives given to individual performers to acknowledge their individual achievements on behalf of the company. They indicate individual responsibility. Salaries are for being part of a team. Bonuses are recognition for individual responsibility.

Many would like to see the bonus culture wither away. That would be a good thing to happen, but it is more difficult than taking an ice-cream off a two year old without making him or her cry. However the Mabinogiblog is versed in T'ai Chi, ju-jitsu and Akido, which uses the force of the opponent to destabilise him. Subtlety is required.

If bonuses are paid for individual success, then the individuals concerned should also be responsible for their failures. If Bank A acquires Bank B and it subsequently turns out that Bank B is in fact nothing but a pile of derivative debt dogshit, a bottomless pit of toxic assets, void of any positive value, then the individual agent who brokered the deal, the individual who received a bonus for clinching the deal - he is responsible. Since it now turns out that he bought a negative asset, a stinking heap of debt, he should be made responsible for what he bought. Instead of taxpayers picking up the results of his actions, paying off debts worth thousands of pounds per capita for evermore into the future, the responsible operative should be brought to court, and made bankrupt.

The enormous advantage of this is that when a man is made bankrupt, the debt he owes disappears. It goes pouf! just like that. It is gone. It is an ex-debt. It is no more. It is finished.

So, bankrupt the likes of "Sir" Fred Goodwin, and make the future easier for our children.

Also, it would encourager les autres. The bonus culture would wither away if the bonus-hunters realised that they might be called to account for their mistakes.

These are difficult and novel arguments I know, but stick around. New is not necessarily wrong.

What if Simon Jenkins is wrong?

Let's try to sort out this mess. The UK economy is not looking good. Unemployment rising, firms going bust, pound falling on the money markets, exports falling despite weak pound, huge and rising public debt, and banks not lending, so no new money for businesses to expand, so firms go bust, unemployment rises, and so on in an egregiously vicious spiral of downward economic plummeting.

Banks are not lending because they fear that the firms they lend to will go bankrupt and they will lose their money, and because they cannot get money, firms go bankrupt. Banks also will get little profit from these high risk loans because interest rates are so low. If banks do not make profits, people will not buy shares in them, and they will go down with the rest of the stinking ship. So Govt is talking of further bank bail outs, which will increase the public debt still further.

The word "unravelling" springs to mind. On the other hand, Simon Jenkins in the Guardian opines that this is all a storm in a teacup, and we should all stop worrying and learn to enjoy life. We should all hope that Jenkins is right, but at the same time, we should inspect what may happen if he is wrong, because he is in a bit of a minority, since a global poll today shows that Mr and Mrs A. Britton is least likely of all the people in the world to trust politicians, bankers or markets.

Underlying all the above-mentioned worries is the fact that the UK economy is more heavily dependent than most on the financial markets, and those markets are the sickest part of the present fiscal stickness. We should look carefully at what happens in Iceland, because where they go, we may follow. In fact last month there were pronouncements that Iceland was looking as if it had bottomed out, so Jenkins may be right. On the other hand, the fat lady has not yet sung. She has not even begun to lace up her corsets (or should that be unlace? Can fat ladies sing in corsets? Are we allowed to say fat ladies in the context of a theatrical cliche'? But i digress).

What I am getting at is that the UK may eventually end up bankrupt. Bust. Empty pockets. Nothing in the bank. No credit. Sterling without any value. There is a limit to all things, even the ability of the State to prop up an intrinsically rotten and irrational financial system. I worry that NuLabour has got the bit in its teeth, and is ready to fire money wherever it seems to be needed. The loan guarantee scheme seems reasonable, (oddly, the Tories agree, and want to put even more taxpayers' money at risk than NuLabour) but discussion of further bank bailouts bring the words "pit" and "bottomless" to mind...

Complete financial meltdown may not happen, but we do need to have a Plan B ready in case it does. The place to start is to spend time watching this video, in order to have a basic understanding of what money is.

Then we need to start reading up about Monetary Reform, to understand that money does not have to be created solely by private corporations in pursuit of profit; it can also be created by communities and the State as a service to oil the wheels of the real economy.

What is the real economy? Energy, food, water, shelter, and waste disposal. This is where the money would do most good. Energy - Green New Deal. Water - big infrastructure works on leaking water mains. Shelter - the Right to Rent. Waste disposal: create a true economic framework for recycling, which requires a tax on the virgin materials with which recycled products have to compete.

In all of this, safe, effective local communities needs to be created, by creation of neighbourhood leaders and community spaces.

At the moment, Government is firing money at the economy as we now know it. This may not work. If the current economy does go up in flames, we need to have a clear idea of what kind shape the Green Economy that rises from the ashes must take.

Darling is considering 'money printing plan'

Ananova - Darling 'mulls money printing plan': "Speculation is mounting that the Government is preparing to print billions of pounds of money to help boost the economy.

Chancellor Alistair Darling indicated during an interview that he is considering a policy of 'quantitative easing' - or printing money - to ease the impact of a recession."

"Banks provide loans, governments print money". Already the language framework puts government issue of money in a poor light.

Have a look at the "Financial" and "Solutions to the financial crisis" labels on this blog for the ramifications of this.

Basically, banks create money through interest bearing loans, which is the cause of the huge world debt problem. Their motivation is to create corporate profit, and they are careless about the ethics of the projects that the loan is used for.

Now that the banks have come cap in hand to government for billions of tax-payers money, it is now clear that Government is the ultimate monetary authority. It does issue the notes and coin anyway. It could also issue money as grants, or loans at zero- or low-interest, but it must be for sound projects that increase our social and environmental security. The chief candidate for this is the vast infrastructure of carbon-free energy that the planet needs.

So, Alistair - go for it! But do not spend the money on the Golgafrincham Arkship B economy.

Tony Blair's Crowning Achievement...

...is to have created a Labour Party fit for a Tory MP to migrate into.

Reading Quentin Davies' rant against David Cameron, you realise that his complaint is that Cameron is too liberal. He wants to join a party with toughness. He dislikes Cameron's reluctance to endorse nuclear power. He is unhappy with Cameron's call for an investigation into the Iraq debacle. In short, the Blair-Brown Labour enterprise is to the right of Dave Cameron in the estimation of Davies Q MP.

A fitting reminder for the amazing fact that

"Tony Blair a PM"

is an anagram on

"I am Tory Plan B"