Monbiot: Some democracy, this.
Homes, gardens and streets are being flooded with raw sewage, recreating, in theme-park Britain, the 18th-century experience (Sky News).
George Monbiot recalls that at the first televised Prime Ministers Questions, on 28 November 1989, the Labour MP Bob Cryer (below) pointed out to Margaret Thatcher (video. 6.36 mins) that there was widespread public anger about her proposed privatisation.
“Millions of people, over the years, have bought and paid for a comprehensive system of water supply and disposal through the rates. When items are sold off which people already own, it is regarded as legalised theft.”
Mrs Thatcher replied that “water privatisation I believe will go very successfully indeed. And perhaps therefore we had better wait and see so that we can pontificate in the light of the facts.”
Having waited and seen, Monbiot comments, we can pontificate in the light of facts, to the effect that Cryer was right and Thatcher was wrong.
He outlines the water companies’ business strategy:
- they load themselves with debt to finance dividend payouts;
- they load the future with costs as they fail to build the infrastructure – such as new reservoirs and pipes – required to meet our growing needs
- and they load the rivers with excrement to avoid the expense of upgrading their plants.
Who has benefited from Margaret Thatcher’s shareholder democracy schemes?
Since the industry was privatised in 1989, the companies have borrowed £64bn. During this period,£78bn has been paid in dividends. A Guardian analysis in 2022 found that 72% of the water industry in England was by then in foreign ownership, including:
- the Chinese state,
- the Qatar Investment Authority,
- the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority,
- the US company BlackRock and other private equity firms,
- the Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing
- the Malaysian magnate Francis Yeoh
- and opaque investment vehicles based in secrecy regimes.
The reality is that power and profit have migrated offshore.
If the government temporarily renationalises Thames Water, it is likely to acquire most of the company’s £18bn debt. Yet Thames still plans to issue more dividends to its shareholders, while raising bills for its customers by 40%.
No-one with a prospect of power can bring themselves to admit all this, because they live in fear of the billionaire media, party donors and the rest of the unelected infrastructure of economic power.
George Monbiot points out: “To achieve what almost everyone wants, we will have to fight almost everyone in power. The Conservatives who privatised water and the Labour governments that failed to renationalise it were not responding to the demands of the people, but to the interests of predatory capital. Some democracy, this”.
Endnote: filling in more details today:
https://www.monbiot.com/2024/05/13/the-underground-economy-of-politics/
o
o
o
o
o
Calls for legislative intervention to protect farmers and the fair pricing of agricultural produce in Northern Ireland
A reader in Wales draws attention to an article in which a British farmer writes:
Farming has always been a risky business. To the chaos of Brexit and the relentless squeezing of the supermarkets, we can add the rapidly escalating threats associated with climate change . . .
Around the world, farming practice evolves in response to past success. Over 30 years, I’ve recorded planting and harvest dates, temperatures and yields, using data to guide my decisions, just like generations of farmers before me. But over the past decade (Ed: and in India three decades ago), as the pace of change in weather patterns has accelerated, the value of that accumulated experience has become increasingly irrelevant. For most farmers, this last year has been about grabbing rare, good weather windows and trying to make the most of wet conditions as we repeatedly fail to get crops sown.
As the risk of crop failure has grown, margins have shrunk, meaning there’s nothing in the bank to pay for the bad years. Farm-gate prices have been driven down to levels which, in a good year, just about cover costs, but leave nothing to cover crops lost to adverse weather.
In China, a British visitor noted that the government gives subsidies to farmers to grow food, encourage rural revitalisation and land reclamation (Political Concern). More than 170,000 hectares have been reclaimed in a drive to cut imports amid global supply chain fears (FT) .
Campaign group Farmers For Action (FFA) has published a report, On Life Support, which it commissioned from the economist Paul Gosling (below centre). Like its 2016 predecessor, On the Eve of Destruction, it calls for legislative intervention to protect farmers and the fair pricing of agricultural produce and for this Farm Welfare Bill to be introduced in Northern Ireland (BBC NI).
Farmers For Action launched the report at Stormont this week
Lousie Cullen reports that County Antrim family farmer and teacher David Hodges has supported the bill, believing that new laws could change the profile of an industry where the average age of farmers is in the late-50s.
The Farmers For Action report found there is a serious problem with poverty in farming families, and that putting supermarkets and food processors in control of prices paid to farmers exacerbates the issue.
The campaign group is urging politicians to support its draft Farm Welfare Bill to support the sector and legislate for price protection (scroll down to P6).
William Taylor, from Farmers For Action (above left), said its consultation with full-time farmers had shown that, with increased profitability as a result of farmgate price protection, additional workers would be employed and part-time farmers could afford to return to agriculture full-time.
The report also called for Stormont to require “wholesalers, retailers and food processors to pay at least the cost of production plus an inflation-linked margin . . . both a practical and effective way of supporting farmers and the rural economy”. Mr Taylor added the report shows there are precedents in other European countries taken “to curb the out-of-control financial pressure coming down the line” to farmers.
o
o
o
o
The Chinese government encourages land reclamation and organic growing
Little Donkey Farm, a small-scale fruit and veg farm near Beijing, is free from both chemical pesticides and fertilisers and genetically manipulated seeds and is co-funded by the Chinese government.
The farm delivers boxes of naturally grown fruit and veg to urban customers, as well as providing small allotments for urban families to grow food for their own consumption.
The families receive guidance about food growing and a chance to escape their tiny high-rise homes and hard-working lives in a concrete, metal and tarmac urban jungle.
Food sovereignty
Tracy Worcester, who visited the farm recently, points out that unlike China, food sovereignty is not a priority in the UK where 49% of fruit and veg farmers in the UK fear that they are likely to go out of business in the next 12 months.
In China, the government’s Rural Revitalisation Programme and food security policy gives subsidies to farmers to grow food, unlike in the U.K. where most subsidies go to NetZero programmes, like planting trees and growing bird seed, that for some obscure reason trump growing food.
Rural Revitalisation
To improve the quantity and quality of land available for growing food, the Chinese government gives the farmers subsidies to reclaim land formerly used for manufacturing, while the British government gives planning permission to cover our precious food-growing land in solar panels as opposed to placing them on roofs.
Promotion of organic farming
To promote organic farming, the Chinese Government also subsidises organic fertilisers to help to grow the sector, whereas Tracy gets no subsidies for her chemical free fruit and veg market garden.
The Chinese want to increase home grown food and improve the quality, while globalists in the UK government sign free trade agreements that allow cheap, substandard food imports to undermine our farmers and perpetuate a race to the bottom in food quality and undermine our food security. Tracy fears that the ultimate goal is to syphon all the profits from Britain’s skilled independent farmers into Big Ag coffers. She comments:
“Under the veil of abating climate change, transnational corporations are driving the world to modernise agriculture with Agri- tech factories run by scientists using GMO seed, chemical pesticides and fertilisers, AI, robots and drones”.
o
o
o
o
Political parties have outlived their usefulness and no longer serve productive purposes
Isn’t It Time to Rid Ourselves of Political Parties?
This question was posed by America’s Dr Jabari Simama – retired educator, senior fellow with Government Technology, who argues that political parties have outlived their usefulness and stand in the way of getting anything positive done.
He points out that the two-party system that dominates electoral politics today has contributed to grotesque amounts of money being spent on political campaigning with the two major parties, controlled by the same corporate interests and beholden to billionaires, and continues:
“I maintain that parties of all sizes and purposes have become problematic”.
“When I was elected as an Atlanta city councilman, it was in a nonpartisan contest. I enjoyed the nonpartisan environment because it required me to work hard to gain support of my colleagues by arguing the merits of my proposals — not merely appealing to their political parties.
“I believe we have arrived at a time and place where political parties have outlived their usefulness and no longer serve productive purposes.
“It is time to turn our attention to other methods of electing candidates for office. Reforms like nonpartisan elections and other approaches that are not reliant on one being a member of a major party should be given serious consideration. It is time to return the focus to the needs of the people”.
“Political candidates and elected officials who swear to work for the greater good shouldn’t have to swear an oath to a political party as well”.
A member of Britain’s House of Lords has written in detail about corruption in Britain, describing government as defenders of offending corporations and rarely proactive in curbing corrupt practices. He states that the political system is opaque and unfit for purpose.
To avoid the power-hungry and corrupt moving into the seats of power, voters could – and should – choose from local independents standing for election, whose personal lives, aptitudes and records of community service are well known. Britain can only be rebuilt by the honest and caring.
0
0
0
o
MP says their religion is not the doctrine of this land; very true, the prevailing doctrine is the survival of the wealthiest
Conservative MP Paul Scully said that – during a discussion on BBC London – in parts of Tower Hamlets and Birmingham, Sparkhill there are no-go areas.
He added that this is mainly because of doctrine, people using, abusing in many ways, their religion because it’s not the doctrine of this land, to espouse what some of these people are saying.”
Representatives of 14 organisations based in Tower Hamlets, have said that for a senior Conservative to say that some parts are “no-go areas” is untrue.
They stress that the problems faced in the area are economic mismanagement and prejudice. About 51% of children live in poverty – in the shadow of Canary Wharf where some of the highest earners in the country are to be found – “that’s the real issue faced here” (Guardian).
Eleanor Steafel during her investigation of Sparkhill, quoted the Conservative Mayor for the West Midlands, Andy Street, who wrote:
“It really is time for those in Westminster to stop the nonsense slurs and experience the real world”.
Walking around the area she saw a relaxed, harmonious, multicultural neighbourhood just as it was when the writer left Birmingham seven years ago.
She reported that the latest crime figures show that crime the area is no higher than in many others around Birmingham with 265 crimes reported in December, 116 of which were categorised as violent or sexual offences. For example, it was safer than Kingstanding, a predominantly white area to the north of the city, where 253 crimes were reported in the same month, 129 of them violent.
Without naming a religion, though the context clearly showed a reference to Islam, Paul Scully correctly said their religion is not the doctrine of this land.
A Todmorden contact gives many examples of “their religion”, including: Koran: 2:219 “(When) they ask thee how much to spend (for the benefit of others) say: what is surplus to your needs”. On decision-making, he summarises:
- Those affected by a policy would have an input
- This input would be extended to all affected by the policy.
- The policy would have to promote a fair distribution of any wealth accrued.
- The policy would be amended to have the approval of all concerned.
See also Environmental Ethics in Islam
And this voice from the House of Lords is one of many giving evidence that Britain’s doctrine is the survival of the wealthiest
The rot begins at the top. Most political parties and too many Members of Parliament sell themselves to the highest bidder. The monied classes don’t dole out cash, they make investment and the return is compliant legislators, ineffective laws, toothless regulators and a state that privileges their interests. Through the revolving doors, cognitively captured corporate grandees are parachuted into regulatory bodies. In such an environment abusive practices have been normalised.
Frauds and malpractices are central to capitalism. Organisations at the top want to remain there and are not averse to bribery and irregular practices to secure business. Too many challengers want to be masters of the universe too . . . Thus, there is an endless cycle of corrupt practices. Those who play cat-and-mouse games are lauded for their entrepreneurial skills and are highly rewarded.
There are rip-off practices in almost every sector and it is hard to find any big corporation that is pristine. Insurance, mobile, and broadband companies are always willing and able to fleece customers unless they move around. Gas, electricity and train companies milk captive audiences through excessive charges. Water companies routinely discharge raw sewage into rivers and dodge taxes. Pharmaceutical companies rip-off the National Health Service through extortionate prices for drugs. Private equity controlled care homes are siphoning-off vast amounts of cash by shifting profits to offshore tax havens through carefully engineered intragroup transactions.
And more is added here by Prem Sikka, Emeritus Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex and the University of Sheffield, Labour member of the House of Lords and Contributing Editor at Left Foot Forward.
0
0
0
0
Former farm-manager’s comment on the previous post: ‘Government: no crops, flooded farmland . . .’
Government: no crops, flooded farmland: it’s time all challenges to the food system were addressed
Professor Timothy Lang deplores the fact that at present, ”There is not sufficient political support to address the challenges the food system causes for the environment, health, development, culture and the economy”.
This vitally important message is delivered clearly and forcefully in his latest book, Feeding Britain.
Vast swathes of farmland are still under water following an unprecedented period of flooding, with 11 named storms since September and the wettest 18 months on record. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board has predicted that wheat yields will be down 15%, winter barley down 22% and oilseed rape down 28% – the biggest drop since the 1980s.
Emma Gatten reports that Joe Stanley, an arable and livestock farmer at a research farm in Leicestershire, said he and his colleagues were facing the first year without a harvest since the land was first farmed after the war.
“Unless it basically stops raining today and then it becomes nice and sunny and windy, we’re not going to get any crops in this year. That’s a real danger,” he said. “Many farmers will be in the same situation.”
Record rainfall has meant that a lot of farmland is still under water, as on this farm near Bangor-on-Dee, Wales
Agriland, on Tuesday, April 9, points out that the UK government’s Farming Recovery Fund will support farmers who suffered uninsurable damage to their land. Eligible farmers are being contacted directly by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) and will be able to access grants of between £500 and £25,000 to return their land to the condition it was in before “exceptional flooding” due to Storm Henk.
A day later Emma Gatten reported that though Henry Ward’s 200-acre farm in Lincolnshire (above) has been flooded since October, after the neighbouring Barlings Eau river broke its banks during repeated storms, he is not eligible for compensation for 160 acres of the land under the Government’s new flood fund. Mr Ward will only receive £2,000 for compensation on 40 acres of the land, despite all 200 acres being under water.
Today’s Guardian explains that this is because the Barlings Eau river does not count as a major river in the government’s scheme. It’s time to cut the red tape like the European Union (paywall).
o
o
o
o
The farmers’ protest had one effect three days after the event*: are others in the pipeline?
Photograph sent by FFA’s William Taylor who was present at the huge protest. He stated that the protest’s main aims were to highlight dishonest food labelling, to call on Government to act to block sub-standard food imports and to take action to address fears over national food security.”
*On Monday after the protest, the government announced that the amount of farmland in England that can be taken out of food production under the post-Brexit farming subsidy scheme will now be limited, following concerns that the new policy would erode domestic food security. Farmers applying to the Sustainable Farming Incentive, one of the new subsidies, will be able to use only a quarter of their land for six different environmental measures that take land out of direct food production.
The Independent reports the words of demonstrator Liz Webster, a Wiltshire beef and arable farmer and the Save British Farming founder
She said the situation risked food security and the nation’s health and farmers had been “totally betrayed” by the Government. The new English agricultural policy of paying farmers for environmental measures such as habitat creation was taking land out of food production.
Trade deals with New Zealand, Australia, and another deal with 11 countries including Canada, Japan and Mexico, along with a lack of import checks, were allowing lower standard foods into the country.
British producers had also lost the level playing field with EU farmers and within the UK, she added, saying European farmers were still receiving subsidies, had freedom of movement for labour and had continued to have access to British markets, enabling them to undercut UK farmers.
Passing the Cenotaph in central London on Friday
Journalist Gordon Rayner was struck by farmer Andrew Gibson’s clear expression of Government policy:
They want us to become low-carbon producers to meet their green targets, but they are doing it by offshoring carbon production to other countries. It’s just unreal.
Carbon dioxide emissions are currently judged to occur at the point of production, not use. So if I eat beans grown in Kenya, the associated emissions go to Kenya.
Thus, Britain will achieve net zero in the way the farmer described: the planet will still suffer emissions, but not, according to these rules, from the UK.
Instead of supporting British farmers, the Government allows cheap imports, produced using chemicals and methods that are banned here. They want us to become low-carbon producers to meet their green targets but they are doing it by offshoring carbon production to other countries. It’s just unreal.
oOOo
COMMENT
And former farm-manager, Richard Bruce, writes:
It is one almighty mess isn’t it? Energy use creates heat and governments encourage ever greater use of energy which inevitably increases the warming of the planet. Global warming is a symptom, as is the ever-decreasing diversity of species.
Farmers and farmland are being sacrificed by the multi-nationals to allow continuing denial of the climate warming activities of industry.
Locally we have farms mostly growing crops to feed biodigesters and not people and ever-increasing areas of good fertile farmland are being sacrificed to solar panels.
No one ever mentions the carbon footprint of the military, of rockets into space, of the constant bombardment of the Earth of radio and microwaves from arrays of satellites, from computer systems and the likes of Bitcoin, or even the Large Hadron Collider which reportedly uses more energy than some countries.
Even the heating of rivers and oceans by water cooled nuclear reactors is ignored, despite the known danger of methane release and ice-melt, as the oceans warm.
The whole carbon capture idea is just one massive con to enable things to continue unchanged ((see EnergyGov, Reuters and the IISD).
There is no way that planting trees here will reverse global warming when the Amazon forests and other key drivers of climate are rapidly being destroyed.
To blame cows for releasing methane when wars rage, holiday flights are encouraged, methane is burned in rockets and carbon dioxide is produced for industry and entertainment is madness.
Bovines have walked this Earth for millennia and are a part of the natural carbon and nitrogen cycles. Moreover they built up the fertility of the soil which are now exploited for profit.
Farmers know that farms have a limit of stock numbers beyond which the land cannot support the livestock on it. Exceed that stocking rate and life becomes unsustainable without importing food. It is the same for countries and eventually the Earth.
Perhaps farmers are being sacrificed by those who have no understanding of their importance?
o
o
o
o
HMRC revisited: press and public comment
Given the name – His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs – it would be interesting to hear the King’s views on HMRC’s treatment of his loyal subjects.
Taxpayers often have good reason to doubt that HMRC is fair and accurate. Its tax demands are often confusing, menacing or plain wrong as noted on this site in the past – see nine articles under HMRC – a failing government agency, 2005-2022
In April, an extra 650,000 pensioners could be required to pay tax on their income due to the 8.5% increase in the state pension and submit self-assessment forms online. Some have no easy access to the internet or find the online service difficult to navigate.
This month HMRC announced that it will shut its self-assessment phone lines for six months from April to September every year but the public outcry moved the Chancellor to intervene and order the tax office to “pause” its plans.
One reader suggests that its recorded message would be changed from, “Sorry, due to a very high volume of calls we are unable to answer right now”, to a more truthful “We are absolutely not prepared to employ more staff to answer your calls”.
There should be an immediate reorganisation of this chronically failing body starting with the removal of all existing top management and replacing them with people who understand the concept of public service.
o
o
o
o
Which extremist groups have government been meeting, funding and platforming?
UK Ministerial departments will be expected to consider the engagement standards when deciding whether to move forward with engagement with groups that meet the new definition.
This will ensure the government does not meet, fund or provide a platform to extremist groups or individuals.
It will also apply to the honours system and due diligence for public appointments. Non-central government institutions, such as arms-length bodies, higher education institutions and independent organisations including the police and CPS, will not be obliged to adopt the definition or apply the engagement principles initially.
A search revealed only one example of such funding. A 2022 article by Charles Hymas reported that a review of the Government’s flagship Prevent programme by William Shawcross, a former head of the Charity Commission, found that key figures in organisations funded by the government’s Prevent project are alleged to have supported the Taliban, defended militant Islamist groups banned in the UK and hosted hate preachers.
oOOo
Can readers add to the list of extremist groups which the British government has been meeting, funding and platforming?
o
o
o
Political Concern 