21-Mar-10
Just came upon this: 'Sinister' German Spy Plan Aimed at Hedge Funds, Analysts Say.
You probably have seen this report already, but if not, you may get a kick out of it. The piece also mentions Spain's national security concerns about economic "attacks" on them by speculators (which we intended to touch on in a recently neglected posting - see below).
We've always been under the impression that economic intel gathering was more common in Europe than elsewhere. We're pretty sure that it is, and it is the target here that makes this newsworthy.
Oh,and here's that related post we prepared but forgot to hit the Publish button.
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.
Methinks it is the Japs that really have grounds for this suspicion. (And originating from culprits other than the media.)
Liberal Democrat Shadow Transport Secretary, Norman Baker said that today's shocking revelationsshould 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!
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.
Why?
Because Kesha Rogers has immediately called for the impeachment of Pres. Obama ( a member of her own party) because the LaRouche Youth Movement believes that Obama's health care proposals are based on Hitler's and their aim is a eugenic cull of the population, and that the president should be thrown out of office.... hence the call for impeachment.
The movement founded by Lyndon LaRouche, who's stood for President many times, believe that the White House takes orders from the British Empire (run from Buckingham Palace and Threadneedle Street), which also organised two World Wars and the fall of the USSR. They are also passionate about expansion into space, particularly the colonisation of Mars using the power of nuclear fusion as well as various economic policies ...... But the reason their programme isn't being hailed more widely is apparently because America's youth has been enslaved by Rupert Murdoch and Bill Gates using (respectively) MySpace and Facebook.
I don't know how I missed em ......
When Christians eventually band together in defence, that doesn't alter the fact that the violence is being instigated by Muslims (as ethnic cleansing for economic and religious reasons)..... wake up BBC, you can't categorise people defending themselves in the same bracket as the attackers, and then blame everyone equally.
Politically correct reporting destroys your credibility in parts of the world that used to rely on your reporting the facts.
When the BBC substitutes or hides the truth in a story just because that truth contains inconvenient facts that conflict with the BBC world view then the BBC is no longer a news reporter and becomes a propaganda unit for left wing PC politics.
How should we vote? By 'we' I mean all of us who are democrats: women and men who treasure liberty, regard our fellow citizens as our moral and political equals, want honest government, honourable leaders and an economic policy not motivated primarily by the urge to make Britain fit for global finance.
So starts Anthony Barnett interesting article, suggestion, for the forthcoming election. From what I can glean from the OK article, not having read the New Statesman, the suggestion seems to be a coalition, or at least large cooperation, between SNP, Plaid (and Mebyon Kernow I hope), Greens, Lib Dems and any disaffected Tory and Labour members.
How would it work and would MK be able to carve out a position in such an alliance? Thoughts welcome.
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.
From today's Sunday Times:
Strathclyde police is to seek guidance from the Crown Office on whether to investigate Labour's biggest donor in Scotland and the awarding of contracts worth 20m by Glasgow city council.
Senior officers are requesting clearance for an inquiry after allegations of improper links between Willie Haughey, a leading businessman, [...]
The National Audit Office published this damning report into yet another area of government incompetence last Thursday. It has taken me a few days to get to read it in full but it is truly shocking. It makes clear that overall responsibility rests with the Prime Minister of the day. In the case of the period covered Blair and Brown. The biggest waste appears to be to major organisations initiated by Gordon Brown that did not last two years!The NAO website introduces the report with the following:
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.
Two of the new departments created by Gordon Brown since he became Prime Minister in 2007 lasted less than two years.
- Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
- Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills
The NAO found limited evidence of measurable benefits, or of reorganisation being the most cost effective way to deliver those benefits.
The ability of central government bodies to identify reorganisation costs is very poor.
- 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.
Value for money conclusion
The value for money of central government reorganisations cannot be demonstrated given the vague objectives of most such reorganisations, the lack of business cases, the failure to track costs and the absence of mechanisms to identify benefits and make sure they materialise. Some arm's length bodies apply sound cost management and systematic benefits measurement, but even they cannot necessarily demonstrate value for money. Overall, the value for money picture is unsatisfactory and the costs are far from negligible.
"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
Via Guido, I see that various ministers have been caught in a sting in which they promise to deliver government influence in return for cold, hard, cash.
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.
Guido turns his fire in the lobbyists, maintaining that they are "scum"--and they probably are. However, the lobbyists are simply taking advantage of the fact that our Parliament is full of greedy, grasping, corrupt, dishonourable cunts who are willing to screw the ordinary people of Britain without the slightest qualm.
These absolute fuckers were willing to pass laws--indeed, have already passed laws--that compel us to do the bidding of their corporate masters. They were willing to take money to fuck us--that's you and me--so that they could stuff their own wallets.
This case is reminiscent of the sting of January last year, when four Lords eagerly courted "some businessmen", each vying to claim that they were the most able to screw the people of this country for the sake of big, fat corporate bribes. And what I wrote then applies in this new case too, because these fuckers...
... 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.
But we really shouldn't be surprised for, as P J O'Rourke said, when legislators decide what can be bought and sold the first thing to be bought and sold will be the legislators.
But we can--and should be--outraged. And worried. For the defining trait of fascism is corporatism--that unholy alliance between the state and big business.
These cunts should be hanged for treason against the British people--and the fact that I particularly loathe the named participants would just bring an extra frisson to the proceedings.
Cunts.
The Trust is also making a separate formal complaint under the Bern Convention on the Conservartion of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats and are expecting a preliminary decision on that issue by the end of the month.
The Wales on Sunday reports that protestors will be joined outside the court by Queen guitarist, Brian May:
The rocker slammed WAG officials' plans to slaughter the badgers in Wales, calling it "tragically wrong" and based on a "flimsy pretext."
The We Will Rock You hit-maker has vowed to use any influence he has to aid the Welsh badgers' cause.
And he pledged to travel from London to Swansea tomorrow to observe the start of a legal challenge on the decision.
He said: "Wales is such a beautiful country and that is completely at odds with the image of badgers being dragged out of their sets and killed in their thousands. "It would be an absolute tragedy and I will do everything in my power to reverse this decision.
"There is a scary, long-term consequence of this course of action - that we won't have any badgers left in the UK. This is the tip of an iceberg."
The hearing will not of course be reviewing the merits and demerits of the case for a cull. Because it is a judicial review it can only look at the process by which the decision was reached, assessing whether all the evidence was properly considered and taken into account.
Obviously, the Badger Trust believe that this was not the case as there is clear scientific evidence to show that culls are ineffective in stopping the spread of bTB and that the £9,427,000 being spent on this operation could be better used on cattle control measures. We will now have to see whether the court believes that the Minister took proper regard of that evidence in deciding to go ahead with the cull or not.
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.
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.
There are six key questions, which also get their own comments threads here; again, one of the salient features is how little there is about the relationship with the US and also that none of the comments seem to find this at all surprising. Not so long ago, suggesting any cooperation with Europe except for the strictest possible interpretation of NATO would reliably get you an avalanche of Tories accusing you of undermining the special relationship. Now, not so much.
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
The six strategic questions are as follows:
* 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?
There's also this one:
* To what extent and in what areas should we continue to refocus our current efforts on Afghanistan?
The rest is basically a summary, but it's interesting that a couple of specific policies make it through to the final cut:
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.
More for reference than anything else, here are the official military planning assumptions, and a list of operations since the 1998 SDR.
This kicks off with the MOD's personnel problems. As in essentially any organisation of the last 15 years or so, there's an invocation of having to learn new skills many times in your career, etc, etc. There's going to be a "whole force concept" review of how the MOD manages its people. There are warm words about looking after our veterans being a moral value. And then there's this:
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.
I would have thought the disincentive to home ownership would be the wages, and the, well, demands of Service life. (How many mortgage lenders are cool with the idea that the signatory may get shot at any moment?) Seriously. What the fuck? Apparently they're looking at "alternative models for accommodation", which might be good if it involved killing off the Annington Homes money pit, but it doesn't sound like it.
On equipment, the general theme of a renewed interest in industrial policy is there, although the section is very general indeed, in fact vague. Tellingly, the issue of operational sovereignty - which has flared up all over again with regard to the F-35 - is raised:
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
There's also a nod to arms exporters, presumably to pass the document through the bits of the MOD involved with DESO and friends.
On organisational issues, the chapter contains a bit more meat; it appears a major re-apprisal of the MOD's structure and business processes is coming, although the drafters warn that the costs of constant reorganisation have been a very serious problem.
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.
Haddon-Cave is the report on the Nimrod XV230 crash in 2006, which demonstrated that the Nimrod fleet was essentially unairworthy in its entirety and that the engineering and management systems intended to guarantee the safety and effectiveness of the MOD's aircraft. A major issue it identified was the impact of constant organisational change - something of a theme throughout the public sector in the Blair era.
The chapter finishes with a ritual call for greater efficiency. There's also this worrying statement, in the light of the bizarre property-booster bit:
the scope for further rationalisation of the defence estate;
Not again...
In short, if Chapter 3 was impressive, Chapter 5 is poor - with the exception of the reference to Haddon-Cave, it's mostly either made up of truisms or else simply too vague to mean anything at all. And what on earth is this stuff about property? Notably, the comments home in on it at once; it's also noticeable that by Chapter 5, the trolls have landed.
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.
This is the strongest pro-European official statement on defence for quite some time, I think. You'll observe that any contradiction between the EU and the special relationship is denied, but it's also true that there's not very much about the US here at all. In that sense, this is a radical statement.
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;
These are the cliché questions, of course - why won't Germany let their helicopters fly at night, does Europe really need quite so many conscripts, does Austria having a dozen Eurofighter really contribute to anything much. There is truth to them, although perhaps less than there would be if the US Marines didn't impose their own national caveats on the US Army. It's in their nature that they will only be settled by long and imperfect negotiation, and if the UK wants them settled, it will probably have to signal that it's serious about European cooperation.
* 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
This suggests a possible use for the exportable surplus of generals identified in comments here.
* how we most effectively generate influence within coalitions and with our key partners
I would argue that an ally whose support is not totally certain has far more influence than one that will go-along-to-get-along with anything...and I suspect that so would the SDR drafters.
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.
I'm not sure if there's much in this, but it's encouraging that the drafting process isn't focusing just on Europe and the Atlantic.
The "partnership" theme is also used to discuss working with civilian organisations, and the problems of building the reconstruction element of a counter-insurgency strategy. Although the word isn't used, there's quite a bit of the language - if Chapter 3 had a Gian Gentile-like concern for general-purpose capability and adaptability, Chapter 4 at least sounds more like Abu Muqawama.
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.
Well, Chapter 3 is in my mind the most impressive bit of the SDR Green Paper so far. It basically sets out the notion that, although the military have as usual succeeded in adapting to the conditions in the field and generally cracking on, the broader defence establishment - the MOD policy-making process, the defence procurement system, the intelligence services, the defence industries - have not done anywhere near as well in coping with constantly changing priorities.
The point is made that although the MOD succeeded, eventually, in turning around a fearsome number of Urgent Operational Requirements very quickly to support the Army in Afghanistan, the very need to issue so many UORs demonstrates that the main equipment programme was dysfunctional. Further, the defence establishment is put on notice that it will have to save money in order to fix the core equipment programme.
As far as answers go, the chapter suggests that there is a need to institutionalise the practice of having regular defence reviews, rather than holding them as and when the Treasury insists, and that this should be set down in an Act of Parliament. Further, they want to alter the strategic planning process - after Iraq, who could possibly object? - in order to "increase the ability of Ministers to direct change", but also to "increase the authority of the Chief of Joint Operations".
There's obviously some tension between these goals - one increases the power of ministers, one the power of the officer corps and specifically the operational command structure rather than the Defence Staff. There's a fine political balance here; if the intention is to boost both Northwood and the ministers, the corollary is less power for the Defence Staff and the civil servants.
Of course, the key to the politics here is procurement, because that's where the money is and because technology eventually becomes policy. Chapter 3 suggests the following changes:
* 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;
To put it another way, especially if there's not much money around, the MOD can't afford to indulge in hyper-specialised gear. Instead, equipment has to be general-purpose, in order to fit in with a strategy of trying to stay agile in the environment "characterised by uncertainty" laid out in Chapter 1. The helicopter example is nicely uncontroversial, but it probably won't have gone unnoticed that it also fits the carriers.
* creating greater flexibility between Regular and Reserve Forces to ensure access to a wider range of skills and a larger personnel pool;
The MOD has been trying to do this ever since the last SDR decided that the Territorial Army was too big and needed cutting; after Kosovo, when an unexpectedly large mobilisation was needed, they changed course, but despite using the reserves heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, they continued cutting the headline numbers until very recently. The reserves were also given a homeland security/anti-terrorism role, being asked to provide a battalion-sized Civil Contingency Reaction Force for each regional brigade. Experience of actual civil contingencies, like the 2007 floods, led this to be abandoned as the civil authorities found they didn't have any need for a CCRF but did badly need almost every other specialisation.
* developing a greater understanding of the appropriate balance between technological edge and larger numbers of platforms;
This was a Hoon-to-Reid era trope - although the services wouldn't get as many (tanks/ships/aircraft/whatever), high technology would make up the difference and therefore the costs of Iraq could be absorbed.
* 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.
To put it another way, if it's possible to re-create certain specialities quickly, we don't need to have them permanently on hand. This requires a different view of the industrial base - does this suggest that we need to pay more attention to keeping the industries involved in the UK?
Further, the procurement system is asked to:
# 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.
The Adaptability section checks out by admitting that the MOD struggled to understand what was happening through the 2000s, that it lacked understanding of the countries it operated in, and that it failed to make use of expertise available in other government departments, in academia, and in other institutions. They propose more openness and suggest "empowering the Concepts and Doctrine Centre", their in-house thinktank. Unfortunately, this lacks credibility - at the same time as this statement was issued, the MOD is in the process of shutting down its Research and Assessments Branch, whose job this is, as the MOD's favourite blog points out.
As far as influence goes, the chapter suggests that the military should be doing more advising, defence diplomacy, and the like, and also tackles the nuclear question very briefly. Essentially, it simply says that we need to make decisions now about Trident so as not to commit to disarmament by accident - this is a far more controversial statement than the SDR makes it sound, and it gives the strong impression that simply nobody wants to discuss it. It's a let-down at the end of what is otherwise a very sensible document.
According to today'sObserver the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable has helddetailed 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, aboutthe Liberal Democrat's demandsin 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, andhe 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 showsshocking 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.
Here's a link to the story on Mark Pack's blog, Lib Dem Voice:
Nick's speech
