A Media Plot against Madrid?: Spanish Intelligence Reportedly Probing 'Attacks' on Economy

Madrid is rushing to calm concerns that Spain could be the next Greece. Now, there are reports that the country's intelligence agency is looking into whether the Anglo-Saxon media has sought to undermine confidence in the Spanish economy.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Transport Secretary, Norman Baker said that today's shocking revelations�should be investigated.

Norman Baker� said:�

"I will be reporting this to the Standards Commissioner and asking him to investigate all discussions on National Express that took place between Mr Byers and Lord Adonis."

Commenting on today's reports that Stephen Byers was filmed saying he worked for National Express during the time it was negotiating with the Government over the East Coast Mainline, Norman Baker said:

"This is a shocking revelation that should be investigated. It is a serious issue that may find Stephen Byers completed work contrary to the rules of the House of Commons.

"I will be reporting this to the Standards Commissioner and asking him to investigate all discussions on National Express that took place between Mr Byres and Lord Adonis. I will also table questions in the House to try and make clear all discussions that were taking place during a deal that has simply failed passengers."

Speaking on BBC's the Politics Show earlier today, the Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg criticised those involved the latest cash for influence scandal.

Nick Clegg's remarks were also reiterated by Norman Baker earlier this morning, Mr Baker claimed that the revelations were shocking and should be investigated by the Standards Commissioner.

Nick Clegg said the reports in this morning's papers relating to former cabinet ministers apparently offering to lobby government in exchange for money "beggared belief."

"Have they learnt nothing about the expenses scandal, about Lord Ashcroft?"

"It's why I've always argued that we need to go far further than reforming MPs' expenses," he said.

Also following the news that polls are consistently pointing to a hung parliament, speaking on the news that that Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable had been invited to talks with the Treasury; Nick Clegg said: discussions between the Liberal Democrats‘ front bench and senior civil servants started a year ago.

"Vince Cable and David Laws and Chris Huhne, our front bench spokespeople, are talking to senior civil servants," Nick Clegg said.

Nick Clegg would not drawn on which party the Liberal Democrats would support in the event of a hung parliament, telling an audience member: "You're the boss, you've got to tell us politicians which party you prefer."

Most holders of a UK driving license have heard of "totting"; the addition of penalty points which are endorsed on a license for various offences eg speeding, no insurance, careless driving etc etc. In most cases upon reaching twelve points there is an automatic six month disqualification from driving in this country. It is the accepted practice that in order to ensure a driver is not unaware of the sanction when penalty� points reach or breach the magic twelve s/he is summonsed to appear before magistrates.� The summons is considered "served" when proof of first class posting is presented to the court.� This, as is all too obvious, allows defendants to declare truthfully or otherwise that they have never received such a summons.� There are arguments for and against instituting "signed for" service but that is for another time.

A very common appearance before a bench is the individual making a statutary declaration in which s/he declares and signs to the effect that eg an event has or has not occurred and the applicant wants to put matters straight.� One common such "has not occurred" event is the non receipt of a court summons and therefore the consequent inability to have complied with the subsequent court directive deriving from that summons.

A couple of weeks ago a woman made and signed such a "stat dec" to the effect that she had not received a summons for a motoring offence for which she was in her absence fined and disqualified from driving as a "totter" the court having had a print out from the DVLA in front of it and therefore full knowledge of her previous penalty points.� She had been away from home for three months and as she lived alone nobody had forwarded or opened her mail.� She came to court two days after coming home and reading the summons.� She was advised that after her form had been countersigned by a Justice of the Peace on the bench the matter was "dropped" and the papers would be returned to the CPS and court involved which would at its discretion decide whether or not to re-issue the summons. She was told that she was still able to drive as the points which had tipped her over the edge were erased at least for now.

The whole system of the service of court summons is a cause for concern.� For example there are millions of immigrants new to the country in the last fifteen years; many live in rented accommodation and frequently change address; most are law abiding members of the community but unfortunately anecdotal evidence suggests that they are� liable to appear in court at least as often and possibly at a higher rate than UK citizens. For them and for all citizens the obvious answer is personal service but the cost, the cost, the cost!

Comments

This originally appeared on Hagley Road to Ladywood's pre-election series.

I voted for Labour in the last three General Elections. In ‘97 I did it with conviction and hope. Four years later, before the War on Terror and all that jazz, I voted Labour with quiet content. At the last election, despite my better judgement and deep anger at the party, I did so again.

I will not be voting Labour in the coming General Election.

The fact remains that some of my closest political friends are still deeply wedded to the party. They don't have much love for Brown, and they're not defenders of the Iraq War, but their loyalty is to the party, not the personalities of the current car-wreck of a government. I've always been a pragmatist, not a tribalist.

I toyed with voting, and campaigning for, the Lib Dems. But having ‘enjoyed' many run-ins with leading Lib Dem bloggers, I found many of them to be insufferably self-righteous. I know Lib Dem bloggers who are great, but others seem to believe they have a monopoly on liberalism and a fabulous sense of their own importance.

So, I find myself without a natural home.

Recently I wrote encouraging voters to ignore the largely indistinguishable major parties and vote for the single issue that's closest to their heart. For me, it is individual rights and the increasing illiberalism of our lawmakers. Following my own advice I'm inclined to vote for the Pirate Party UK.

I know all about Godwin's law of internet debate, but there is something about the pending Digital Economy Bill that reeks of state-capitalism. I believe in artist rights and intellectual property, but to ram through a half-arsed statute that seems oblivious to the workings of the internet, is plain wrong.

(Read Paul Carr's excellent post at Tech Crunch for a fair-minded assessment of the Digital Economy Bill).

The Pirate Party knows that copyright law is broken. People should profit from innovation, but ideas that are in time shared and modified, contribute to our further advancement. And that has to be good.

Even with regard to media, it's important that all that is good and great is experienced by the maximum number of people. Artists should profit from their work, but they should also realise that the world that created the opportunity they enjoy, should be rewarded in turn by adding to the collective pool of human wisdom and creative output.

It's not socialism, far from it. It's about both rewarding creativity and also ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to enjoy the one limitless resource we have: knowledge.

Finally, with the internet, we can encourage children to discover and learn without limits. For politicians to consider cutting off an internet connection because someone is accused of downloading a copyrighted song is as baffling as cutting off a water supply because someone drowned a kitten in a bath. The internet is a utility. Fact.

(It's worth noting that there are no fines in the DEB for rights holders making spurious claims of infingement, meaning they can flood ISPs with complaints; that would ensure any fair process is impossible to implement).

Across the planet powerful lobbys are drafting draconian laws that endanger our freedom to share knowledge and propagate culture. A recent study found that file-sharers spend more money on new media than non file-sharers. We believe that artists and innovative companies should be rewarded for their efforts, but at the same time, we refuse to be held hostage to the excessive profit-mongering of monopoly rights holders.

If they stand in my area, I'll vote for the Pirate Party not because I believe in everything they stand for, but because I want this issue to get the scrutiny and focus it deserves. The DEB should be scrapped, and parliament should start again from scratch, drafting a law that has the propagation of knoweldge at its core, not the profts of big media.

I believe that the internet holds an astonishing power to realise otherwise unfulfilled potential in our young. Yes, many an internet hour is spent watching cats fall of sofas, but for the voracious and inquisitive young mind, the net presents an opportunity that previous generations could only dream of.

As Pope said, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Aaron Murin-Heath blogs at Rational Geekery.

We all understand the disproportionate effects of first past the post (FPTP), but what about the distance it puts between voters and politicians?

The size of constituencies used in FPTP, and the even larger ones used in STV, mean that politicians can't hear the voices of individual communities clearly. The link between voters and MP gets weaker the larger the size of the constituency they are elected in.

There is only one electoral system that will make the gap smaller and deliver proportional results, non-contiguous first past the post. For an explanation on how this works, click here. (For reference, 19% of council seats are Lib Dem,�not including district seats.)

An MP is not given an easy ride in safe seats in this system, FPTP/AV constituency boundaries mean it is practically certain who will get elected. For a party to lose representation under STV, there may have to be a significant swing of many thousands of votes in a 5 member constituency of hundreds of thousands of voters. No parts of wards will go neglected, Labour parts of Tory safe seats will have representation, and vice versa. In Non-Con. voting, the majority in safe seats would consist of no more than a few thousand votes, meaning a challenger could get elected first time round, without having to build up a voter base over many election cycles. Communities will get the representatives they vote for, and parties will have a democratic mandate because they have won elections to get where they are. A fringe 5% of the vote is not the same as 50% of the vote in 50 wards.

As councillors and MPs would always be of the same political party, team building would be made easier. Councillors would be the local face of this team, meeting constituents on a day to day basis. Or, rephrased, meeting many more constituents than the Mp could do alone. They would be able to answer questions on policy that may not be made clear, or distorted in the media. For example, communication over immigration would have been made a lot easier between Labour and their constituents if voters had a direct conduit to their Mp, who is currently far too remote for many voters to access. The same message coming from a local person would have a different resonance than if it had come from a cabinet minister that spends their life in London.

This would be an important counterbalance to celebrity politics. Elections should be won on ideals and not on slick media TV debates. Months of hard work should not go to waste because of a slip-up by one person on one night. Community sized constituencies would mean a bad performance on one night would not mean electoral disaster, as one team of activists could saturate an entire constituency in one day. Voters could be met and the message that the party wants to get across strengthened.

I would like to here how you received this idea, and criticism is welcome.

‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV's readers. Please email voice@libdemvoice.org - voice.hat.libdemvoice.org.spam.com (this is spam bot hidden email address, replace .hat. with @ and remove .spam.com for the real one) if you are interested in contributing.

If you find yourself alone, riding down a gentle slope amidst the green fields, with a smooth road before you, and the sun on your face, do not be troubled. For you are in Elysium, and you're already dead.

Chris Hutt, local cycling expert (and activist) has moved on to other opportunities. His writings will remain available in perpetuity (or until Google go out of business) at the Green Bristol Blog, and his comments at this and other blogs are visible on his Disqus page.

I think I'll leave him in my feed list. Just in case.

Fifty-five people arrested and several injured after violent clashes between the English Defence League and Unite Against Fascism supporters

Former ministers Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon caught on camera claiming they could influence government

The Labour party today promised a crackdown on lobbying by former ministers after a group of MPs, including former cabinet members, were targeted in an elaborate sting operation in which journalists set up a bogus lobbying company and offered to pay them in return for political influence.

Among the politicians approached was Stephen Byers, the former cabinet minister and arch-Blairite, who was filmed describing himself as a "bit like a sort of cab for hire". He offered to trade Westminster contacts for �3,000 to �5,000 a day.

Others who were targeted in the undercover operation included former cabinet ministers Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt. Margaret Moran, Labour MP for Luton South, was also involved.

Labour tried to limit the damage last night by saying some MPs were "mortified" by how stupid they had been. However, nothing illegal has been alleged.

Today, the party rushed forward a manifesto pledge for tighter regulation and monitoring as it emerged politicians had claimed to be able to influence policy.

The chancellor, Alistair Darling, said it was "ridiculous" that the MPs had been caught out in the sting. He told BBC1's Andrew Marr show: "The best answer when you get a call like that is to put the receiver back down again. It's obvious.

"There are rules about serving MPs - we've said that we're going to have to, I think, get a statutory-backed code of contact to deal with former ministers. "But really, what on earth did they think they were doing? And equally for a company, you don't need a lobbyist. If you've got something to say, go directly to the government department and make your case. It's just ridiculous."The foreign secretary, David Miliband, said he was "appalled" by today's revelations. He told Sky News: "There is absolutely no room for anyone to trade on their ministerial office. People come into politics - whether Labour, Tory or Lib Dem - because of what they want to do for the country. And I believe that's true for MPs across all parties, I don't think this is a partisan point.

"Anything which sullies that reputation or gets in the way of that public service is completely inimical. I think it's right that we have tightened up the rules already ... but the Labour manifesto is going to say more about the need for a statutory register of the lobbying industry, because there is absolutely no room for the sort of innuendo or promises that seem to have been floated in this case."

In the sting, 20 MPs were invited to attend meetings to discuss joining an advisory board and 10 turned up. The meetings were mainly held at offices in London's St James's Square. An undercover Sunday Times journalist asked them how the company could go about influencing policy and how it could improve its chances of winning a government contract.

Byers said he had saved hundreds of millions of pounds for National Express through his contact with Lord Adonis, the transport minister, and had influenced food labelling proposals for Tesco after phoning Lord Mandelson, the business secretary. The MP said that his friendship with Mandelson was one of his "trump cards".

However, the next day he sent an email to the meeting's organisers saying he had "overstated" the part he had played in trying to secure changes to the way in which the government deals with issues. "This means that I have not spoken to Andrew Adonis ... or Peter Mandelson about the matters I mentioned," he wrote.

Byers issued a statement last night saying that at an informal meeting about a potential job opportunity he had made some "exaggerated" claims.

"Having reflected on my comments I knew that I should immediately put the record straight. I did so the following morning by making it clear that I have never lobbied ministers on behalf of commercial interests. I later withdrew my name for consideration. I have always fully disclosed my outside interests," he said. Byers described the set-up as a "massive deception".

A spokesman for Tesco said: "We did not speak to Mr Byers on food labelling, regulation or indeed any other issue. These claims are completely fictitious and Mr Byers has acknowledged this to us."

The operation features in a Dispatches programme to be aired tomorrow on Channel 4. The journalists set up a lobbying company known as Anderson Perry Associates, supposedly based in the US. Its website described it as a "bespoke consultancy that helps organisations and individuals maximise and exceed expectation". It claimed to have 120 clients in Europe, the Middle East and the US, operating in the health and defence industries.

Another of those filmed was the ex-health secretary Patricia Hewitt, who said she "completely rejected" the suggestion that she helped obtain a key seat on a government advisory group for a client paying her �3,000 a day.

She stressed that the role she had been discussing would only have been taken up after she stepped down as an MP at the imminent election, and insisted there was "nothing unusual or improper in the business appointments that I have taken up since leaving government".

The expos� is likely to thrust the issue of standards back to the heart of the election campaign as party leaders battle to show they will clean up parliament.

David Cameron promised tougher controls last month, warning that secret corporate lobbying was the "next big scandal waiting to happen" in Westminster after expenses. He wants ministers to be forced to wait two years after leaving government before being allowed to lobby - twice the present limit - and harsher penalties for those who breach the rules.

Between May 2005 and June 2009, there were over 90 reorganisations to central government. But a report released today by the National Audit Office has found that these cannot demonstrate value for money, given that most had vague objectives and that costs and benefits were not tracked.

The average annual cost of reorganisations is almost �200 million, around 85 per cent of which is for the reorganisation of arms length bodies. Since 1980, 25 central government departments have been created, including 13 which no longer exist. By comparison, in the United States only two new departments have been created over the same period.

Central government bodies are weak at identifying and securing the benefits they hope to gain from reorganisation. There is no standard approach for preparing and assessing business cases setting out intended benefits against expected costs. By not identifying anticipated benefits clearly, public bodies run the risk of carrying out reorganisations unnecessarily. More than half of reorganisations do not compare expected costs and benefits of alternative options, so there can be no certainty that the chosen approaches are the most cost effective.

Furthermore, no departments set metrics to track the benefits that should justify reorganisation - making it impossible for them to demonstrate that the eventual benefits outweigh costs.

The ability of central government to identify reorganisation costs is poor. There is no requirement to set reorganisation budgets so no department and only a half of arms length bodies began implementation with a reorganisation budget in place. In addition, there is no requirement for bodies to disclose the costs of reorganisations after they happen - meaning the true cost of reorganisation is often hidden.

The decisions to reorganise departments and arms length bodies are often taken at short notice and with inadequate understanding of what could go wrong. This approach leaves management teams - particularly in departments where reorganisations often start on the day they are announced - planning and implementing reorganisation simultaneously. Only a quarter of arms length bodies had project plans in place before they announced reorganisations. Reorganisations of departments are generally announced before project plans are in place.

• Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
• Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills

• It is easy to take decisions without clearly demonstrating that they are sensible.
• There is no requirement to set reorganisation budgets so true costs are hidden.
• There is no requirement for bodies to disclose the costs of reorganisations after they happen, so Parliament is not able to consider information.

• Reasons for reorganisations are expressed in broad terms and do not give clear explanations of expected benefits, creating the risk that some reorganisations may be unnecessary.
• No departments set metrics to track the benefits that should justify reorganisation, so it is impossible for them to demonstrate that eventual benefits outweigh costs or materialise at all.

"Bureaucrats want bigger bureaus. Special interests are interested in whatever's special to them. These two groups bring great pressure to bear upon politicians who have another agenda yet: to cater to the temporary whims and fads of the public and the press."--All the Trouble in the World. The Lighter Side of Overpopulation, Famine, Ecological Disaster, Ethnic Hatred, Plague and Poverty by P J O'Rourke

A FORMER Labour cabinet minister has boasted about how he used his government contacts to change policies in favour of businesses.

Stephen Byers, former trade and transport secretary, was secretly recorded offering himself "like a sort of cab for hire" for up �5,000 a day. He also suggested bringing Tony Blair to meet clients.

He was among several politicians recorded by an undercover reporter posing as a company executive looking to hire MPs for lobbying work.

The others included:

• Patricia Hewitt, a former health secretary, who claimed she helped to obtain a key seat on a government advisory group for a client paying her �3,000 a day.


• Geoff Hoon, the former defence secretary, offered to lead delegations to ministers and told the reporter that he was looking to turn his knowledge and contacts into "something that frankly makes money". He said he charged �3,000 a day.


• Margaret Moran, the Luton MP who was forced to pay back �22,500 in expenses, boasted that she could ring a "girls' gang" of colleagues on behalf of clients. Among those she named were: Jacqui Smith, the former home secretary; Hazel Blears, the former communities secretary; and Harriet Harman, the deputy leader of the Labour party.

The interviews were part of a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4's Dispatches programme in which 13 Labour MPs and seven Conservatives were approached.

... are just another branch of the legislature who are willing to sell our liberty down the river in order to line their own pockets. They are evil fucking cunts and they should be ejected from the House forthwith. Hopefully, the shame will lead them to do the honourable thing, although I doubt it...

... because it is becoming more and more fucking obvious that not one single individual in our Parliament has the least shred of honour or decency. As Cromwell so eloquently put it...

"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

"Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

"Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

These people are cunts and they must be removed. All of them. Our Parliament is corrupt to the core and rotting from the ground up. Our legislators serve no purpose but to enrich themselves and, if it requires them to put the sell us into slavery, then they will happily do so.

This has gone beyond a little light-fingered thieving: this is the selling of policy to corporate interests for money; this is collusion with big business to enslave the nation: this is fascism.

Raze the entire place to the fucking ground and hang every single inhabitant: let there be a bonfire of their vanities. These people are colluding against the people of Britain for their own selfish gain and there is now surely no reason to tolerate this disgusting state of affairs.

It's time to clear out the rot and start again.

It is the quintessential coastal holiday destination, complete with a historic harbour popular with yacht owners and idyllic countryside that offers visitors a glimpse of a more traditional, genteel way of life. Such is the charm of Southwold, on the Suffolk coast, that Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah took their two sons on a family holiday there and each summer the town attracts thousands of music fans who come to enjoy the Latitude Festival.

But now large areas of the popular beauty spot are to be lost under government plans to abandon the flood defences that have protected the town and its surrounding countryside from the sea for more than 400 years. The clay embankments that have kept the sea at bay around the Blyth Estuary have been condemned as unsustainable by the Environment Agency because of rising sea levels and will now be left to crumble. It means 250 acres of rare protected habitat, home to rare species of birds and plants found in only a handful of locations within the UK, will be left to be destroyed by salt water and the historic Southwold harbour will be allowed to crumble due to erosion.

The plans are expected to form a blueprint for similar strategies in other estuaries around the country. Plans are being drawn up for the Alde and Ore Estuary and the Deben Estuary, both popular beauty spots on the Suffolk coast. They are part of a wider policy to abandon coastal flood defences across Britain, a move which will drastically change the face of country's coastline. Swathes of farm land, natural habitat, national beauty sites and hundreds of homes will be surrendered to flooding from the sea under the plans for "managed realignment" of coastal areas.

More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/7486871/Wildlife-havens-to-be-abandoned-to-the-sea.html

The stability-obsessed government fears growing public anger among the country's middle class, who once focused largely on securing jobs and homes but are becoming increasingly assertive — sometimes forcing authorities to back down on unpopular plans. City residents in the capital Beijing and the relatively well-off coastal provinces of Jiangsu and Guangdong all came out in 2009 to try and block new constructions or expansions of incinerators, an annual review by one of China's oldest and best known environmental groups, Friends of Nature, said. "Health and safety are people's bottom line. When they feel threatened, and there's no other way to defend themselves, they protest," said Yang Changjiang, a journalist and co-author of the fifth annual "Green book of the Environment" report.

�

Some of the protests are successful. The government in southern Guangzhou city put off plans to install one incinerator when hundreds of people demonstrated, demanding that the facility be relocated. But China has already surpassed the United States as the world's largest producer of household garbage as increased prosperity brings increased consumption.

�

The government is struggling to find new ways and places to dispose of the growing heap of rubbish, the report said. With space already at a premium in a country struggling with a shortage of farmland, incineration is an obvious alternative. Beijing and Guangzhou now generate around 18,000 tons of garbage per day, but only have capacity to process 10,400 tonnes and 12,000 tonnes respectively, state media have reported.

�

�

Protests included rallies, petitions, sit-ins, online forums and group efforts to dig into the financial affairs of officials who might be benefiting from any construction. "We're tired of what the experts and officials said," one user of an anti-garbage-burning forum set up by residents of southern Guangdong province wrote. "We had no choice but to obey their decisions. It's time for change." They are part of a sea-change in the nature of environmental protests that first gained widespread attention with efforts to block a chemical plant planned for the port of Xiamen in 2007.

More: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62I1Z620100320?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2Fenvironment+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Environment%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

An attack on Vedanta staff near its aluminium refinery in India shows us that the clash of capitalism and remote tribes is more complex than James Cameron would have us believe. The incident happened last month in the state of Orissa. Exact details are unclear but a senior member of Vedanta Aluminium Ltd, the Indian subsidiary of the UK-based Vedanta Resources Plc, confirmed that members of its corporate social responsibility team were attacked by unidentified individuals who set their jeep on fire and hospitalised two employees. As a measure of how well your public relations team is doing, this is not a good sign.

Tensions are growing in the region. The Dongria Kondh tribe strongly oppose Vedanta's plan to mine for bauxite in the Niyamgiri Hills, which is home to their deity. A few days after the attack, they held a puja (religious ceremony) on Niyam Dongar hill in which they vowed to resist the project at all costs. The initial reaction was therefore to blame the Dongria Kondh for the attack on the PR team. The truth, however, may be less straightforward. Mukesh Kumar, Vedanta's chief operating officer in the region, claims the attackers were men who had moved into the area looking for work, quarrelled with locals and been forced to leave. Evidently, they blamed Vedanta.

If true, this account suggests it is not just the mining itself that can generate anger - it also generates resentment among those who feel excluded from its perceived benefits. The caricature of Vedanta is of a ruthless conglomerate driving a bulldozer through village communities in its ravenous search for valuable minerals. This caricature was given the three-dimensional technicolour treatment in James Cameron's Avatar, in which the unspoilt purity of the blue-skinned Na'vi tribe faces the rapacious greed of a US mining corporation.

Art seemed so closely to mirror reality that a campaigning group, Survival International, used the film's success to publicise the cause of the Dongria Kondh, with the tribe apparently writing a letter to Cameron asking for his assistance. If the Dongria Kondh actually made it to their local Imax to watch the movie, one wonders how perturbed they would be at the solution it proposes: that local tribes should band together and have a gigantic, bloody battle against robot-suited humans and helicopter gunships. Perhaps if they believed the lesson of the film - that the fight could be over in a single afternoon after which the mining corporation would skulk off with its tail between its legs - then they might mount their flying dragons and have a go.

Sadly, the reality of capitalism's advance is far more insidious and much harder to resist. The fact is that many villagers in Orissa welcomed Vedanta's refinery when it was built in 2004, taking lucrative compensation packages in exchange for their land. Since then, Vedanta has poured huge amounts of money into a hearts-and-minds campaign, providing schools, medical care and infrastructure in its attempt to win over locals. Many of those who saw little value in free televisions and scooters nonetheless found it difficult to turn down the promise of better education and job opportunities for their children.

This is the true power of capitalism - not the muscle it can flex, but its ability to play on an individual's hopes and fears, often at the expense of the community as a whole.

One of the dangers is that there is no going back. Amnesty International claims many of those compensated in the refinery scheme did not fully understand the terms of the deal, for example thinking they would all get employment rather than just one member from each family. Few seemed to realise they would lose common farming land, forcing them to buy a lot of the food they once produced collectively. Nor did they realise the ecological impact that would result. But the deals are done, and the land is sold. Its findings received strong backing from the government this week, whose investigators decided Vedanta had violated human rights and forestry laws in its Orissa operations.

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/mar/20/vedanta-attack-dongria-kondh-tribe

It appears that Redlands ward has been hit by graffiti taggers again. This environmental degradation really gets residents down, as you can imagine and we are determined to ensure the Council stays on top of the problem. Out talking to residents around Erleigh Road yesterday I came across a lot tags - on Erleigh Road itself there has been an outbreak of tagging in red paint - including this road sign on Denmark Road:

A few weeks ago I also reported this tag (below on Hatherley Road):

A short walk up London Road revealed this tag:

 I also noticed graffiti on Fatherston Road. I have reported these tags and more like them to Reading Borough Council's Streetcare team so that they can be logged on the Thames Valley Police database and removed as soon as possible. A couple of years ago after pressure from the local Lib Dems the Council carried out a 'Big Graffiti Clean Up' campaign to remove graffiti tags from local streets. My colleague Glenn Goodall reported back in January another graffiti outbreak in our area. In February one of the graffiti taggers responsible for 'PERSIA' 'OMG' tags in Redlands was given a five year ASBO .

Last year I raised issues about what the Council was doing to keep this problem under control . Glenn and I met officers in Streetcare to calll for more action. It sounds like we might need to do so again. An ongoing issue with residents is the high charges imposed on them for graffiti removal on private property by the Labour-run Council. I had an email from one constituent who was none to happy about the high charges - she is a pensioner on a fixed income who is already facing a �2,000 Council Tax bill! Not good. The cost to the Council in cleaning up graffiti each year is estimated to be around �150,000. I do think the Council needs to look at ways of diverting taggers from residentital areas - perhaps via a graffiti wall. My Lib Dem colleagues have raised this with RBC but so far officers have not been keen on the idea. In the meantime, please help us in our campaign to keep local streets free of graffiti - please let us know of any problem areas and report tags to the Council using this online form.

It is likely that the American commitment to the NATO Alliance will wane in the next 10 - 20 years...The prospect here, indeed possibly the only prospect, is of closer ties with our European partners through development of the Common Security and Defence Policy....It is obvious that the continual paring down of national capability will end in a Euroforce. Whether this is perchance or by design is a moot point. I think the time has come to stop resisting this and start positively embracing it

* Given that domestic security cannot be separated from international security, where should we set the balance between focusing on our territory and region and engaging threats at a distance?
* What approach should we take if we employ the Armed Forces to address threats at distance?
* What contribution should the Armed Forces make in ensuring security and contributing to resilience within the UK?
* How could we more effectively employ the Armed Forces in support of wider efforts to prevent conflict and strengthen international stability?
* Do our current international defence and security relationships require rebalancing in the longer term?
* Should we further integrate our forces with those of key allies and partners?

* To what extent and in what areas should we continue to refocus our current efforts on Afghanistan?

Options for enhancing our cyber capabilities and structures to ensure we can defend, and take steps, against adversaries when necessary; and where we might increase our contribution to allied space capabilities or invest in our own national capabilities.

The provision of accommodation, for example, is a potential disincentive to home ownership and may not represent the best investment we can make in helping families and personnel deal with the demands of Service life.

We will have to revalidate our overall approach to:
* Operational Sovereignty. Our Armed Forces rely on assured overseas sources for some important equipment and support but there are cases where specific industrial capability must be located in the UK for operational reasons

Change must be considered carefully in the light of the risks associated with reorganisation highlighted in the Haddon- Cave Report. The future Review will offer an opportunity to re-examine the model and to determine whether and how we might be able to improve on it.

the scope for further rationalisation of the defence estate;

Our current relationships are mutually reinforcing. NATO remains the cornerstone of our security. However, as Europeans, we must take greater responsibility for our security together. Stronger European defence co-operation offers many opportunities, not least in the wider role defence should play in resolving conflict and building peace. The UK will greatly improve its influence if we and our European partners speak and act in concert. A robust EU role in crisis management will strengthen NATO. Playing a leading role at the heart of Europe will strengthen our relationship with the US.

The Review will need to determine where there is scope to increase the effectiveness of those relationships in delivering our security or to rebalance our investments across the organisations. In particular:
* how we can strengthen European nations' contribution to global security, including through more effectively aligning resources and priorities;
* how we can further improve cooperation between NATO and the EU;
* how we increase equitable burdensharing within NATO and the EU, particularly with respect to operational deployments;
* whether there is scope for increased role specialisation or capability-pooling within NATO and the EU in order to create a more coherent and capable output;

* whether we should increase our investment in UN peacekeeping, and in particular our contribution of forces to UN operations;
* where we could offer further assistance in strengthening the strategy and planning functions for UN operations at headquarters level; how we continue to streamline and improve the cost-effectiveness of each organisation; and

* how we most effectively generate influence within coalitions and with our key partners

Beyond Europe and North America, the Review should consider the merits of formalising our long-standing bilateral relationships and where new and expanded partnerships could bring mutual advantage and reinforce global and regional security. For example, regional security organisations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the African Union are already playing an important role in ensuring international stability and there is scope to further improve links between these organisations and the EU and NATO. In the recent economic crisis, the G20 emerged as critical to coordinating the response of the international community. Some argue that we must similarly expand the international security architecture to better include emerging powers.

We have made major strides forward with what is called the Comprehensive Approach - a unified approach to defence, diplomacy and development. There has been progressive improvement, driven particularly by our experiences in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, since early 2008 we have doubled the number of deployed civilian experts and we now have an integrated structure, headed jointly by a UK senior civilian representative and the UK Commander Task Force Helmand, and focused on the rapid delivery of stabilisation effect in an insecure environment, alongside military operations.

The Stabilisation Unit - jointly owned and staffed by DFID, FCO and MOD - has improved the UK's ability to plan, deploy and direct activities in fragile and failing states, including countries emerging from conflict. In particular, it has established a new Civilian Stabilisation Group with over 800 deployable external experts and over 200 civil servants with the right skills and experience to help countries recover from conflict....

Only local people will determine whether, in the long-term, a country or region will establish self-sustaining stability. They have a right to be consulted on the path that they will take towards that stability. Ultimately, they will lead and own this path. Their knowledge and understanding will also enhance the prospects of our success.

* generating more adaptable forces. Many of our forces are already operating outside their primary roles. We need to strengthen this trend towards taking on multiple roles;
* prioritising our investment in capabilities with wide utility, which are likely to be effective in a range of scenarios and against a range of threats. These would include, for example, support helicopters;

* creating greater flexibility between Regular and Reserve Forces to ensure access to a wider range of skills and a larger personnel pool;

* developing a greater understanding of the appropriate balance between technological edge and larger numbers of platforms;

* relying on being able to reconstitute military capabilities, to enable us to access a full range of balanced capabilities with appropriate warning time without having to maintain those capabilities at all times.

# increasing our use of mature technologies when setting requirements. This would reduce the risk that research and development could lead to delays and cost increases in the programme;

# increasing our use of spiral or modular development, in which we build a capability to meet our current requirements but with the capacity to upgrade that capability by adding functions or technologies as they become mature or new threats emerge.

According to today's�Observer the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable has held�detailed talks with the top official at the Treasury about the Liberal Democrats' economic policies.

Both Civil Servants and the political parties are now taking the prospect of a hung parliament seriously, and it looks as though they are paving the way.� It is unclear whether talks have taken place with Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellors before previous general elections in the past, but Vince Cable has apparently declared himself willing to serve as the chancellor following the next election.

As Whitehall gets ready for a possible hung parliament, Vince Cable told the Observer that he had been questioned by Nicholas Macpherson, the Treasury's permanent secretary, about�the Liberal Democrat's demands�in a coalition with either Labour or the Conservatives.

The talks were a sign that the Treasury is taking the prospect of his party playing a leading role in economic policy seriously in what could be the first hung parliament since 1974.

Vince Cable said

"He wanted to know what we attached priority to, and�he wanted to know what we felt strongly about,", and added that his ideas on tax and spending were well received.�

Vince Cable, whose credibility has grown throughout the economic crisis, made clear that, if he was to be offered the chancellorship in a hung parliament, he would jump at the chance.� He did not want to be "the most unpopular person in Britain" as public spending is slashed, he said, but added:

"I wouldn't be in this business if I wasn't willing to take the responsibility if it was to come my way."

Vince Cable made clear he would have serious reservations about working with either Labour or the Conservatives, and he said:�

"I'm worried about both

"If either of them came back, Gordon, given his history, will be in denial about difficult decisions, and the Tories are in danger of doing foolish, precipitate things that could make the situation a lot worse."

Vince Cable was noticeably more critical of the Conservatives' response to the financial crisis, saying that they should score "nul points" for failing to grasp the seriousness of the situation.

"They haven't done anything to attract praise, because they completely and totally misunderstood the problems."

The Liberal Democrat Shadow Transport Secretary, Norman Baker said today's news that shows�shocking revelations should be investigated; "I will be reporting this to the Standards Commissioner and asking him to investigate all discussions on National Express that took place between Mr Byres and Lord Adonis."

Commenting on today's reports that Stephen Byers was filmed saying he worked for National Express during the time it was negotiating with the Government over the East Coast Mainline, Norman Baker said: "This is a shocking revelation that should be investigated. It is a serious issue that may find Stephen Byers completed work contrary to the rules of the House of Commons.

"I will be reporting this to the Standards Commissioner and asking him to investigate all discussions on National Express that took place between Mr Byres and Lord Adonis. I will also table questions in the House to try and make clear all discussions that were taking place during a deal that has simply failed passengers."

� Speaking on today's edition of The Politics Show on BBC 1, the Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg said that short-term prison sentences did not work to reduce reoffending, as he set out his plans on justice and sentencing.

� Nick Clegg said Liberal Democrat plans would aim at stopping a "conveyor belt" of reoffending by introducing a system in which victims of crime got the chance to face criminals and participate in the justice system.

Asked whether he thought short-term prison sentences worked, Nick Clegg replied: "of course they don't."

"Let's be smart about it, let's do the something that stops this conveyor belt," he said.

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

UPDATE: The YouGov tracker tonight has: 

Con 38% (+2)

Lab 31% (-1)

LD 19% (-1)

A new ICM poll for tomorrow's New of the World shows the Tory lead at six points. The topline poll results are:

Conservatives 38% (-2)

Labour 32% (+1)

Lib Dems 19% (-1)

Those numbers, translated on a uniform swing, would deliver a hung parliament, with the Conservatives 39 seats short of a working majority on 287 seats, and Labour on 285, according to the UK Polling report's swing calculator. 

ICM's research was based on interviews with 1,002 people between March 17th and 18th.

YouGov's daily tracking poll will follow later.

Share

By Lisa Ansell / @LisaAnsell

The Digital Economy Bill was supposed to provide the ‘backbone’ for a future in which the internet will become even more central to all aspects of our life and our industry. Yet the rapid progression of this bill has prompted accusations of "sidestepping democracy", suppression of free speech, and legislating against the British public to suit the interests of a few large companies. A matter of weeks away from one of the closest-fought general elections I can remember, my question is: what effect will this bill have?

The internet is a tool for communication; it has changed the way we communicate beyond imagination. Using digital formats, we can share data quickly, easily, and with a more people than ever before. It is simultaneously a marketers dream, and nightmare – you can reach a massive audience, cheaply and quickly, but it is much more difficult to exercise control over what that market sees, hears, or says.

If we take the music industry as a case in point the means to make, market, and distribute the commodity are now in everyone’s hands. Releasing a record no longer means finding the holy grail of a label who will sign you up; gaining access to radio playlists is no longer the only way get your music heard.

There has been a proliferation of new record labels, making a living in a market which they were previously excluded from. New tools like Soundcloud, MySpace, Twitter, and the plethora of digital download sites offer opportunities for collaboration, distribution and marketing that were previously held by just a few companies.

There has been a dramatic increase in gig and festival ticket sales, and the music industry has a vibrancy and diversity that has been lacking for a long time. Some companies have grasped the opportunity that this massive new market has provided, and some have not. Discussions around these changes, and objections to this bill, always focus on one issue: filesharing.

In one corner, we have the major record labels saying filesharing is theft that has "cost" billions; in the other we have the rest of the market showing that they don’t agree. That cost includes the death of a retail market, which would seem an inevitable part of all downloading, not just illegal downloading. Music is downloaded (legally and illegally) on a scale that record sales never matched and there is evidence to show that consumers who download and share the most music are also the people who are buying it. Some companies want to grasp the opportunities the internet gives, but not adjust to its challenges.

Commercially speaking, criminalising millions of your customers is not likely to have long term benefits. It is also clear that the difficulties major labels are facing are not just a result of illegal downloading.

Practically, this clause is unlikely to have the desired effect. Shields for IP addresses which help downloaders evade detection are being released daily. Every attempt to tackle the ‘problem’ of illegal downloads, has gone the same way. A change in technology, a change in website – the market decides, and downloading continues.

There is no doubt a debate needs to be had about how notions of copyright should change to reflect this new market, but no matter how much the major labels lobby, there isn’t consensus even within the music industry.

This bill is unlikely to help the industry reach that consensus, especially not if the way it is pushed through is seen to restrict necessary debate. The bill which is supposed to provide the structure for Britain’s digital future, is currently being opposed by the internet service provders who are central to that future – not because they are worried about their profits, but because they don’t want to police their customers in this way, especially not on the basis of an assumption that has not been proved. Consumers are worried that this clause could have serious effects on their lives. Consumers vote.

Is this clause so important that it is necessary to push it through at any cost? Is it really wise to have this bill become an easily recalled symbol of Labour’s record on civil liberties, and a ‘sidestepping’ of democratic process? This close to this election?

Share

Share

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

UPDATE: The Times has details of likely new duties on alcohol; the Telegraph has details of a possible "pollution tax".

In an Observer report about a meeting between Treasury officials and Vince Cable to discuss the Liberal Democrat's willingness to be chancellor in the result of a hung parliament, details of the content of Alistair Darling's budget on Wednesday budget are also emerging.

The Observer says: 

"The chancellor has little room for manoeuvre in pre-election giveaways, but one idea being seriously considered is to delay a 3p rise in petrol duty. Darling will announce a £1bn green infrastructure fund to invest in low-carbon technology and extend job schemes to help unemployed young people into work.

While the deficit is expected to be as much as £10bn below the £178bn forecast in his December pre-budget report, the Treasury stresses the focus will be on the chancellor's commitment to halve the deficit within four years. "It's a boring budget," said a No 10 source. "He may extend the odd payment here and there, but it is about stability and jobs."

In his weekly podcast, Gordon Brown states today that the recovery remains "fragile and in its infancy". The prime minister says that Labour's commitment to cut the deficit is "non-negotiable", but stresses that investing in jobs and programmes for industry is a way to reduce it in the medium term.

"It means not taking away the extra support too soon, which risks setting back the recovery and tipping us back into recession… If we allow unemployment to run riot, as happened in previous recessions, that will cost us more and add to the deficit," he says."

Speaking of the possibility of becoming chancellor after the election, Vince Cable said:

"I wouldn't be in this business if I wasn't willing to take the responsibility if it was to come my way."

Share

By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

UPDATE: The YouGov tracker tonight has: 

Con 38% (+2)

Lab 31% (-1)

LD 19% (-1)

A new ICM poll for tomorrow's New of the World shows the Tory lead at six points. The topline poll results are:

Conservatives 38% (-2)

Labour 32% (+1)

Lib Dems 19% (-1)

Those numbers, translated on a uniform swing, would deliver a hung parliament, with the Conservatives 39 seats short of a working majority on 287 seats, and Labour on 285, according to the UK Polling report's swing calculator. 

ICM's research was based on interviews with 1,002 people between March 17th and 18th.

YouGov's daily tracking poll will follow later.

Share

By James Valentine

Does policy matter? On the face of it, not very much. Electors often don't have much to say about political parties’ policies, or even necessarily show much interest in them. On the other hand if there’s an absence of policy, then people notice. The Tories’ wobble in the last couple of months has come about because people have perceived a hole where policy should be. There have been too many errors like that misplaced decimal point that conveniently multiplied by ten the number of schoolgirl mothers. And people are sceptical about a supposedly reformed Conservative Party that offers tax breaks for the richest estates and wants to bring back fox-hunting.

The next parliamentary term will see unparalled financial austerity and some have commented that this will make difficulties for Labour in its own manifesto. But this isn’t necessarily the case – for example House of Lords reform, which has already been signalled, will be a revolutionary change but it doesn’t involve a major spending commitment.

Labour's manifesto will be a positive document based around the idea of a sustainable economy and locking in the improvements that we've already made to public services. It won't skate over the difficulties but it will nail what Alan Johnson calls the "big fat lie" of "Broken Britain". 

The tight public finances could actually benefit Labour because the commitments pencilled in are fully costed and can be defended. The same isn't true of the Tories. For example, their signature "free schools" policy is based on the extraordinary idea of creating a deliberate surplus of school places in order to allow parents easily to "shop around". Gove still hasn't explained the costings behind it, as James Mills noted yesterday.

The Tories are, I suspect, already regretting Osborne’s decision to make public debt their key issue. Next Wednesday, Alistair Darling will stand vindicated, yet again, by the recent reduction in unemployment which has led to lower than anticipated borrowing. He is right to continue to support employment to get the economy moving. But in the medium term he will set out strict measures to rebalance the public finances. His prescription will be drastic, and yet all the Tories will do is bleat for more, without saying where they would cut.

Policy is undoubtedly the Tories’ weakness, but it won’t necessarily stop them. Although his friend Osborne couldn’t convince a flea, Cameron himself is a plausible fellow. He appears to have no convictions and he has changed his mind on just about everything.

But he’s got something on offer to anyone who’s disgruntled by Labour – no matter that his ideas are contradictory. And a third term government, by definition, means a lot of disgruntled voters.

Let’s hope Gordon can pin him down in the debates. In the meantime, winning will be hard work, and that’s why I along with thousands of other activists will be talking to electors this weekend.

Share

By Kieran Roberts

A few PMQs ago, David Cameron claimed that “under the Conservatives, we won the Cold War.” That was off putting enough but what I found most reprehensible was his continuation: “and we all remember who was wearing the CND badges at the time!” This was met with jeering, laughter and finger pointing from the Tory benches. It was vile. Nuclear weapons are uneconomical, unusable and unethical and to be mocked for campaigning for their removal sums up that we still face a very nasty opposition.

Cameroon soundbites aside, it raised a far more important issue. One of the leading members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was also a leader of our party. Since Michael Foot resigned the leadership, the Labour Party has transformed in its position from supporting unilateralist disarmament to the continual renewal of Trident. During the Cold War perhaps it was arguable that nuclear weapons acted as a deterrent. This is the only justification for possessing them, and even that’s based on the notion of “you destroy our country, we’ll destroy yours, and the planet in the process.”

I’m aware that suggesting nuclear disarmament is the kind of idealism that kept Labour out of power in the Foot days, but it makes sense.  Trident renewal will cost £97 billion. Think what £97 billion could bring to the NHS. Think how many people could be lifted out of poverty with £97 billion. This money is being wasted as Trident itself can never be used. No Labour, Tory or Lib Dem government would ever attack a country on such a scale and despoil the environment for centuries. And Trident doesn’t even defend us. Any nuclear weapons being developed by a ‘rogue state’ can be destroyed using conventional weapons. They are what Paul Smith rightly describes as “vanity weapons.”

Despite Michael Foot’s campaign for unilateralist disarmament, rearmament has historically been a Labour policy. As Tony Benn says in his diaries: “Attlee built the bomb, Chevaline was endorsed by Callaghan and now were coming along with Trident.”

After Hiroshima, the world said never again. To stay true to this, we need a world without nuclear weapons. The current process of multilateral disarmament is, and will continue to be, expensive and arduous. Nothing sends a clearer and more principled message than adopting a policy of unilateral disarmament. We’ll be better off economically and just as safe internationally and personally; despite Tory scoffs, I’d like to see Labour politicians wearing CND badges again.

At the moment, Britain is a small island trying to prove it’s might with big missiles. It’s pure Freud.

Share