Category Archives: Economy

Public health emergency: move some freight from road to water and reduce air pollution

“There are an estimated 11,000 deaths per year at the moment, but this will rise as the population continues to age”. (The British Heart Foundation (BHF) 

Summarising an Environmental Law paragraph:

  • Transport is the biggest source of air pollution in the UK.
  • In town centres and alongside busy roads, motor vehicles are responsible for most local pollution.
  • Surface transport is responsible for around a quarter of UK emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – a major contributor to climate change.
  • Many areas still fail to meet national air quality objectives and European limit values for some pollutants – particularly particles and nitrogen dioxide.

As the shortage of HGV drivers in the UK has climbed to 59,000 and 64% of transport and storage businesses now face severe skills shortages, (according to a recent report by the Freight Transport Association) it is a good time to consider a shift from HGV to barge.

The British Heart Foundation (BHF), has warned that more than 160,000 people could die over the next decade from strokes and heart attacks caused by air pollution. Jacob West, executive director of healthcare innovation at the BHF, which compiled the figures, said: “Every day, millions of us across the country are inhaling toxic particles which enter our blood and get stuck in our organs, raising our risk of heart attacks and stroke”.

Bellona Europe (header below) comments that inland waterway transport has greater potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than road or rail, when discussing ways to make the mobility sector more clean and carbon-neutral.

“With air pollution contributing to around 40,000 deaths a year and four in 10 children at school in high-pollution communities, it’s clear that tackling air pollution needs to be everyone’s urgent business.”

 

 

 

 

.

Reversing decades of neglect: government-commissioned report on upskilling and reskilling adults in the workforce

Dr Philip Augar (below right), chair of the Post-18 Education and Funding Review Panel, was commissioned by the May government in February 2018 to improve the availability of technical and vocational education by providing alternatives to university education.

Dr Augar opens his report by pointing out that the review is the first since the Robbins report in 1963 to consider both parts of tertiary education together:

Prime Minister Harold Wilson – in the ‘60s and ‘70s – supported tertiary education by supporting the setting up of the Open University, channelling funds into local-authority run colleges of education and creating extra places in universities, polytechnics and technical colleges.

Since then, Augar points out, no government of any persuasion has considered further education to be a priority.

The consequence has been decades of neglect and a loss of status and prestige amongst learners, employers and the public at large.

He sees the review as a unique opportunity to deliver an objective assessment of the current situation, to articulate the country’s future needs from tertiary Introduction education, and to propose remedies that are practical and realistic in addressing the issues it has identified:

“It is an opportunity to consider the roles both should play in meeting the country’s social and economic needs, how they fit together, how they should be funded and whether they are delivering value for students and taxpayers”.

The review asks whether the changing pattern of public subsidy is strategically desirable

It points out that the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the public subsidy amounts to about £30,000 per student for those studying Arts and Humanities and as much as £37,000 for those taking courses in the Creative Arts. The equivalent is £28,000 for Engineering students and £24,000 for those studying Maths and Computer Science.

And Figure 3.11 (based on HMRC data) also shows that the government’s investment in providing Engineering degrees has fallen by about £9,000 per student since 2011, but risen by more than £6,000 for Creative Arts degrees – over 30% more per student for Creative Arts than it does for Engineering.

After describing post-18 (or ‘tertiary’) education in England as a story of both care and neglect, depending on whether students are amongst the 50% of young people who participate in higher education (HE) or the rest, Philip Augar continues:

“The panel believes that this disparity simply has to be addressed. Doing so is a matter of fairness and equity and is likely to bring considerable social and economic benefits to individuals and the country at large.”

In a changing labour market it is vitally important to offer upskilling and reskilling to older adults in the workforce with basic or intermediate skills and an FT editorial adds a reference to the “knock-on effects on productivity, wage growth and social harmony”.

At present the decline in vocational education is widespread and protracted. Most of the neglected 50% of the 18-30-year-old population who do not go to university, and older non-graduates are at work and, if they are educated at all after the age of 18, are educated mainly in further education colleges where teachers are paid on average less than their counterparts in schools:

“Funding levels are inadequate to cover essential maintenance or to provide modern facilities, and funding flows are complex to navigate. Not surprisingly, the sector is demoralised, has little to spend on mission groups and is consequently under-reported in the media and under-represented in Westminster”.

The FT editorial board welcomes the recommendation to expand the tuition fee loan system to all adults made by Augar, whom they describe as a businessman and historian.

It points out that increasing numbers are attending university, in sharp contrast to the UK’s vocational education system, which has seen funding cut by 45% in real terms since 2010 and agrees:

  • The Treasury should make up the funding shortfall in grants for science and technology courses, which receive less taxpayer funding despite wider benefits and that
  • more resources will be needed to fund opportunities for lifelong learning and training.

Its conclusion: “Creating a system in which all contribute and all benefit is essential. would be good both for the economy and to promote a fairer society . . . with knock-on effects on productivity, wage growth and social harmony”.

 

 

 

o

 

Wry smile? Michael Rosen’s 10-point Guide to Labour Leadership Candidates

A gift from Robert Kornreich, a Kings Heath reader; emphasis added.

1. The Economy: if you’re asked about why ‘Labour crashed the economy’ – concede everything. Apologise profusely. Say, ‘Yes we did.’ Smile weakly. Agree if the interviewer makes out ‘there was no money left.’ Agree that it was ‘necessary’ to ‘get things right’ and ‘tough decisions had to be made’ and perhaps ‘we were in the wrong place to put them right at the time.’

Don’t ever point out that in fact it wasn’t the ‘economy’ (in the sense  of the government’s finances) that had ‘crashed’. It was the bankers’ who wouldn’t or couldn’t lend money any more.

Never point out that the UK is a currency-issuing economy. Never point out that the government has been issuing billions of what they call ‘quantitative easing’ which has the net effect of making the super-rich richer by increasing the value of their assets.

Don’t make a big deal out of ‘inequality’. Instead, cite the misleading statistics on the inequality of pay. These ignore the inequality of wealth which factors in ‘assets’ e.g. property.

Never mention trade unions. It has been shown that a unionised workforce is able to squeeze a little bit more wages out of the system, alongside better work safety, guaranteed breaks, improvements of working conditions. Never ever mention this. Let interviewers talk about ‘union barons’ and smile weakly.

Never mention ‘nationalisation’. Give that up. All of it. Right away. If power firms, railway companies, water companies, the postal service or any other part of the economy is doing a rubbish job and ripping off people, on no account suggest that nationalisation might be a possible solution. Keep talking about ‘responsible business’ or some cack about ‘a new kind of capitalist’.

The amount of national debt in proportion to the GDP is worrying some economists. You can mention this but if anyone says that you talking about this is ‘damaging confidence’, clam up and smile weakly.  

The amount of private debt created by the Tories in order to make up for weak demand is getting to a point where some in the financial community are getting a teensy bit worried that the old domino effect could strike again: a bank in some part of the world system might shut its doors and then another and another and we’re back in 2008. The fact that this is finance capitalism being finance capitalism must never be mentioned by you. You must keep up the pretence that this is some kind of present difficulty in what is really a perfect system. Talk about ‘regulation’ and ‘responsible banking’ as if that could or would solve anything.

If the whole financial system collapses, blame Russia, China, Iran and Jeremy Corbyn. 

2. Foreign policy. You are just allowed to say that perhaps the Iraq War was not ideal (don’t mention the millions of deaths, rise and rise of terrorist groups)  but there are no other wars that you can say were wrong. 

You should talk as if ‘Britain’ (never say ‘UK’) has to ‘help sort out’ anything going on anywhere so long as the US thinks it’s right to do so. Clearly, Iran needs to be ‘sorted out’ next, so say so. Never question the right of ‘Britain’ to do so.

When the media machine gets going explaining why some country (any country) is the greatest threat the world has ever known, agree with this. Smile weakly. Point out that this is ‘patriotic’.

Talk about something called ‘Britain’s standing in the world’ as if you’re talking about Queen Victoria being crowned Empress of India.  Talking of Queens, always say the Queen is wonderful. And so is the Royal Family. Nick Boris Johnson’s phrase ‘beyond reproach’. Mention that your mother loves Prince William.

3. The Election defeat. Make absolutely clear that there was only one cause for this: Corbyn. Never admit that any move over Brexit that he put forward came as a result of something your group pushed him into. On no account let anyone make comparisons of the popular vote: Brown (less than Corbyn), Miliband (less than Corbyn). Never make the point that the Labour Party hasn’t actually disappeared and that 10 million people voted for a Corbyn-led Labour Party this time and 12 million last time.

Keep saying the manifesto was a mistake. Don’t go into details. Begin sentences with, ‘I just think that…’

43 out of the 59 constituencies that went from Labour to Tory were in Leave seats. On no account mention this. Don’t mention the fact that probably, once Johnson came back with a deal, the game was up for Labour.

What you have to keep saying is ‘we’re listening to people’s concerns’. Be very clear that this isn’t anything to do with poverty caused deliberately by the Tories. That’s much too confrontational. ‘Listening to people’s concerns’ means you visiting somewhere for the TV and  letting people on camera or on the radio ramble on at you for hours about how they aren’t racist but the trouble is that immigrants have cut their wages, getting council houses, putting pressure on the national health and talking loudly on buses.

On no account point out that poverty, housing shortage and an under-funded NHS were created by the Tory government through austerity as a deliberate part of cutting the role of the state and them (not immigrants) trying to create a cheaper labour force. You must never ever say this. 

4. Antisemitism. You will be asked about ‘antisemitism in the Labour Party’. This is good. You will not be asked about ‘antisemitism in society’, or ‘antisemitism in the Tory Party’, so you must not mention these either. There is only ‘antisemitism in the Labour Party’. Concede everything.

On no account question whether any report or account was in any way exaggerated, distorted. You must not mention the fact that when Johnson was elected as leader of the Tory Party, every journalist in every newspaper knew that he had been editor of the Spectator and had edited ‘Taki’ who regularly poured out antisemitic jibes in his column for Johnson or on his own blog or other publications. Don’t mention that not a single one of these journalists mentioned this. Don’t say that you are in any way concerned by Rees-Mogg and his antisemitic jibes about ‘illuminati’ and Soros, his retweeting of a tweet from the Alternativ für Deutschland or that he has hung out with far right groups.

Don’t on any account mention the links between the Tory MEPs and far-right groups in Europe. Don’t mention that Boris and Orban (antisemite) appear to get along very nicely. On no account dig up anything on the way that Dominic Cummings talks about Goldman Sachs – it’s almost identical to the way antisemites used to talk about Rothschild.

Just keep saying sorry for ‘antisemitism in the Labour Party’ as if it’s the first, last and only presence of antisemitism in the UK today.

Always refer to ‘the Jewish community’ as if it is one monolithic entity all thinking and living in more or less the same way, even though it’s a teeny bit antisemitic to say so. It’s the kind of antisemitism that no one notices so it doesn’t matter.

5. Israel.  Remember Ed Miliband – he suggested that one way to get the ‘Peace Process’ going again was for the UK to recognise a Palestinian state before negations. He was immediately vilified, Maureen Lipman left the Labour Party and, apparently, thousands of Jews followed her. Miliband was, according to the Jewish Chronicle ‘toxic’. On no account repeat Ed’s proposal.

Talk about the ‘peace process’ as if it’s a real thing. You can frown in a caring sort of a way about the West Bank and Gaza but on no account propose anything concrete or useful. Accept that all problems in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza are caused by Palestinians. 

6. Brexit. You’re stuffed. There will either be a very hard Brexit or a very very hard no-deal Brexit. Remember, no one understands trade deals, nor do you. Keep saying phrases like ‘the very best for Britain’. It doesn’t mean anything because something can be, say, the very best for bankers and it’s absolutely no good for working people. The advantage of keeping going on about ‘Britain’ is that it feeds into people’s sense of entitlement and special status as Brits in the world.

7. Education. Don’t disagree with the academy and free schools programme. Don’t make a fuss about unaccountable academy management siphoning off millions. On no account oppose grammar schools. These offer the illusion that they are good for the poor because a tiny percentage of poor people go to them. Never describe the schools that are not grammar schools as  ‘Sec Mods’. Keep calling them High Schools and do the ‘progressive’ bit by saying that there are teachers in High Schools who are doing a fantastic job. This has the advantage of being both patronising and unnecessary and completely misses the point that the people you will call the ‘disadvantaged’ are disadvantaged by grammar schools.

8. Social mobility. This is going to be one of your big ones. Keep going on about social mobility. On no account mention the fact that there are 3 key motors that prevent social mobility: inherited wealth, private education and inherited wealth. To mention these is class war. Don’t do it.

In fact, social mobility also accepts the idea that there must be and will always have to be the very poor, not quite so poor, the fairly poor, the not poor, the quite well off, the very well off and the eyewatering obscenely super-rich. All we can hope for, you point out, is that a few people might move up from one of these layers to another. On no account mention that someone must move down for someone else to move up – assuming the numbers stay the same. In other words, social mobility means society immobility. No change. Keep going on about social mobility as if it’s a really progressive alternative radical idea. Mention the fact that your grandfather was poor, you are not and it’s all down to ‘social mobility’. Never mention the role of the expansion of the economy over the last 100 years as a factor.

9. Immigration.  The best plan here is to agree with everything that the Tories do. They will probably fill the airwaves with anti-immigrant rhetoric mixed with how wonderful certain individual migrants have been. Just copy this.

They will say that they’re going to follow the Australian system, so you should either agree or find another country – Canada or New Zealand (somewhere with a largely white government and English-speaking) – and say that we could follow what they do. The election has shown that not challenging anti-immigrant rhetoric leads many people to think that immigrants have caused their poverty which then in turn leads them to vote for the very people who have made them poor.  You must not make this point.

10. Housing. The last Labour Governments could have created a fantastic legacy of social housing. Gordon Brown muttered as much himself as he was leaving office. You could try to say one or two things about social housing but it generally reeks of ‘old socialism’, so avoid it.  In order to sound modern and forward looking, you need to say things like ‘we’re looking into exciting forms of shared partnerships’ or ‘we’re talking with business about how to get more affordable homes on to the market’. The great thing about the word ‘affordable’ is that it sounds like anyone and everyone can ‘afford’ the housing that’s ‘affordable’. They can’t. It’s complete nonsense but you must go on using the word anyway.

 

PS That’s all for now. Come back to me for more in a few days time.

Tuesday, 17 December 2019

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.com/2019/12/my-media-10-point-guide-to-labour.html

 

 

 

 

o

183 economists and academics say the Labour Party deserves to form the next UK government

CityAM, London’s most-read financial and business newspaper, reported (“Economists give Labour a boost by backing spending plans”) that Professor David G Blanchflower (below, right) headed the list of signatories to a letter (25 November 2019). It added under an illustration: Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party would markedly increase the size of the state to roughly German and French levels”

Summary of the economists’ letter which opened: “The UK economy needs reform”

For too long, it has prioritised:

  • consumption over investment
  • short-term financial returns over long-term innovation,
  • rising asset values over rising wages,
  • and deficit reduction over the quality of public services.

The results:

  • ten years of near zero productivity growth,
  • corporate investment has stagnated,
  • average earnings are still lower than in 2008,
  • a gulf has arisen between London and the South East and the rest of the country
  • and public services are under intolerable strain – which the economic costs of a hard Brexit would only make worse.

We now moreover face the urgent imperative of acting on the climate and environmental crisis.

Given private sector reluctance, what the UK economy needs is a serious injection of public investment, which can in turn leverage private finance attracted by the expectation of higher demand.

Such investment needs to be directed into the large-scale and rapid decarbonisation of energy, transport, housing, industry and farming; the support of innovation- and-export oriented businesses; and public services.

It is clear that this will require an active and green industrial strategy, aimed at improving productivity and spreading investment across the country. Experience elsewhere (not least in Germany) suggests a National Investment Bank would greatly help . . .

As the IMF has acknowledged, when interest payments are low and investment raises economic growth, public debt is sustainable. At the same time, we need a serious attempt to raise wages and productivity. A higher minimum wage can help do this, alongside tighter regulation of the worst practices in the gig economy. Bringing workers onto company boards and giving them a stake in their companies, as most European countries do in some form, will also help. The UK’s outlier rate of corporation tax can clearly be raised, not least for the highly profitable digital companies.

As economists, and people who work in various fields of economic policy, we have looked closely at the economic prospectuses of the political parties. It seems clear to us that the Labour Party has not only understood the deep problems we face, but has devised serious proposals for dealing with them. We believe it deserves to form the next government.

 

 

 

o

Will Corbyn/Labour’s industrial strategy guarantee fair production costs for perishable food – or rely on the global market?

“It is simply not right that any worker should have to sell their product for less than it costs them to produce them, and this is acutely felt by dairy farmers.”

Countryfile, reviewing Jeremy Corbyn’s “Rural Renewal” report, continued to quote: “A combination of a small number of very large milk processers operating as suppliers to retailers, supermarkets operating a ‘price war’ forcing down the cost of milk, and milk co-ops losing their power has resulted in thousands of dairy farmers finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, let alone make a profit.”

Corbyn said “we will work with all parties to ensure that customers are offered a price they can afford for their milk, but not at the expense of farmers whose very livelihoods depend on it. This will include investigating regulating supermarkets to prevent below cost selling.”

Factories don’t sell their products at a loss, but those producing perishable food are often required to do so. It’s so easy to put pressure on those producing perishable food: fresh milk, fruit and vegetables, who have to sell quickly – in effect holding them to ransom.

Seven years ago Telegraph View pointed out that some supermarkets pay less for milk than it costs to produce. Nothing has changed! Prices sometimes drop to the 1990s level but all other costs have risen steeply.

Confidence in successive governments continues to fall as the country has become increasingly dependent on imported food – which now even includes tomatoes from Morocco and eggs and poultry from Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

A Fairtrade Policy Director noted that ‘The unpleasant and aggressive tough love lobby’ which has cut social and healthcare, education and public transport doesn’t spare family farmers

Corbyn on a Cumbrian farm, pledging to do “everything necessary” to stop no-deal Brexit carnage for famrers

No thoughts of love – or natural justice – appeared in the Oxford Farming Conference address of Liz Truss, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who blamed the ‘difficult world market’ for low milk prices and focussed on farming’s ‘huge export potential’, rejoicing that ‘we now grow chillies which we export to Pakistan and Mexico’.

Barbara Crowther (right), by far the best Fairtrade Foundation Director of Policy & Public Affairs (2009-2017), said “There is a very unpleasant and aggressive tough love lobby out there who simply do not understand the importance of locally sourced food and the underlying food security issues which are only going to get worse as the global population grows”. She asked “Could we make our Mark work on milk?”. This link to that (now unwelcome?) reference has been removed.

It’s a fair question and is something that has been looked at, and discussed many times – not least as part of a ‘Local and Fair’ conference a few years ago, bringing Fairtrade and Cumbrian farmers groups together to discuss the issues they hold in common, co-ordinated by Joe Human (see Barbara in video at that conference).

MP Anne McIntosh (below, who chaired the parliamentary Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee, for several years, urged the Government to intervene, after it was reported that 60 dairy farmers went out of business in one month alone. EFRA wanted the Groceries Code which covers suppliers to the big supermarkets and retailers, to be extended to include dairy farmers – but soon afterwards, the estimable Ms McIntosh was deselected. Now in the Lords she is campaigning for the farming interests threatened by Brexit

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/anne-mcintosh-trade-eu-vital-our-farmers-62385

The Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers insists that all supermarkets could pay dairy farmers a price for milk that would meet the cost of production without increasing the price charged to the consumer: they would just need to accept a slightly lower profit on the milk they sell.

Placing the issue third after Angora goats and use of level crossings, the BBC, in a video link no longer working, gave priority to the destructive comments of the establishment economist, Sean Rickard.

Apparently unaware of economic interdependence – the knock-on effect to other industries and the rural economy – Sean Rickard tells farmers that if they can’t manage under these conditions, ‘they should give up making milk and live off the subsidy’.

In fact, as Clitheroe dairy farmer Kathleen Calvert often points out, the whole rural economy is affected as farmers lose income. Each working dairy farm returns a huge amount of money back into the wider economy, supporting many other regional businesses, and therefore helping to provide jobs for many. Each dairy farm that ceases to trade has a knock-on effect on the surrounding community and the economy, due to a loss of income to many other businesses. From press release, link no longer works. Instead see a briefer reference in Lancashire Life.

The key message “We are losing hold of a vital skills base at an alarming rate as dedicated dairy farming families are no longer financially able or prepared to work at a continual loss. We believe that many milk buyers gamble with the continuity and security of the UK milk supply by keeping much of the profit further up the market chain. Despite varying business structures and the importance of food production, most farm gate prices are now lower than production costs. This has a knock on effect on a wide range of other businesses and livelihoods of countless people involved, ultimately leading to pressure on incomes”.

Dairy farmers are compelled to pay a levy to DairyCo/AHDB, a body set up by government, which, consultant Ian Potter (above right) notes, has received – and spent – more than £1 million extra as a result of the increase in production. He asks: “But on what? Cynics say it spends the money on encouraging more production because that generates more levy money for it…and so on!” He continues: “In my opinion we now need a campaign to promote the buying of British dairy products using British milk . . . I have heard one Tesco farmer would prefer to give his levy to Tesco if he could to help it promote British milk. That makes sense to me if DairyCo won’t!”

Meanwhile food imports rise and government ministers advise hardworking farmers to place their ‘commodities’ on the global market so that unproductive internet bound speculators can ‘make a killing’ – nowadays more often crouched over their computer screens.

 

 

 

o

“Don’t write off Labour”, warns Robert Shrimsley, Editorial Director of the FT

“Mr Corbyn comes to life on the stump”

Above: Corbyn in Trafford, May 2019

Mr Shrimsley estimates that a vote share above 30% may be enough to prevent a Tory majority adding that, given likely losses in Remain strongholds, Mr Johnson needs 40-50 gains.

Other points made include those summarised below.

Having alienated the Democratic Unionists, the Conservatives have no natural coalition partners and face the ‘potentially wrecking impact’ of Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party.

Several other parties might support Labour or at least tolerate an anti-Johnson administration. The early evidence is that Remainers may be reconciling themselves to voting Labour where necessary.

Labour has a coherent narrative. The last three years have been no advert for Tory efficiency and the last nine have not left most people feeling better off

It has a raft of policies with appeal to core groups. It has baubles for young and old, tenants and workers. It will not be outbid on public services.

Voters’ current experiences are of austerity and cuts. Labour can, for example, note that Mr Johnson’s promised 20,000 extra police will only restore numbers to their 2010 level.

Plans to nationalise water and rail companies will play well, as will promises to give workers more say and more pay.

Labour also has a radical agenda on the environment, perhaps the most salient issue for younger voters.

And the wild card? As Camilla Cavendish (former No10 adviser) points out: “Mr Corbyn comes to life on the stump; Mr Johnson doesn’t always seem to do his homework”

 

 

 

o

 

Leaks reveal Corbyn’s campaign themes and Johnson’s post Brexit intentions

A provisional Labour election “grid” which was leaked to the Sunday Times is said to reveal that while Mr Johnson is framing this as “a Brexit election” Jeremy Corbyn will continue with two main themes.

Mr Corbyn will first focus on the National Health Service, described by the FT’s George Parker and Laura Hughes as “traditionally Labour’s strongest suit”.

He sees Brexit leading to a “toxic Trump trade deal”, opening up the health service to rapacious US corporations and will challenge PM Boris Johnson about the claims in a recent Channel 4 Dispatches programme, alleging that the Tory government was secretly discussing NHS drug pricing in the context of a possible post Brexit US trade deal.

The FT journalists say that the risk that voting might take place against the backdrop of one of the NHS’s periodic winter crises, “keeps Tory strategists awake at night”.

The second campaigning focus will be on evidence that post-Brexit workers’ rights and regulations will be changed for the worse

The BBC and Financial Times have seen a leaked internal government document marked “Official Sensitive”. This “Update to EPSG (Economic Partnership Steering Group) on level playing field negotiations” was drafted by DExEU, the government department for exiting the EU.

The document suggests that Mr Johnson – a persistent critic of what he sees as unnecessary regulation from Brussels – wants to diverge ‘significantly’ from the EU on regulation and workers’ rights after Brexit, despite a pledge to maintain a “level playing field”.

The FT reports that it was told by one senior adviser to Mr Johnson, “We’re not confident at all. Of course this is a gamble. But it’s the least worst option.” Mr Corbyn’s supporters expressed confidence in his campaigning ability, first shown in the 2017 election, when he captured 40% of the vote.

 

 

 

o

Will the rising tide of youthful voters sweep away selfish politics?

A surge in number of young people registering to vote has been reported as more than 300,000 applications were submitted in two days. There was a big spike on the day the election was announced. 

        • A third were from people under 25.
        • Nearly two-thirds of applications were from people aged 34 and under
        • and 4% came from those aged 65 and over.

Dr James Sloam is co-director of Centre for European Politics at Royal Holloway University, currently leading a project for the Greater London Assembly investigating the key policy issues for young people and questions of civic and political engagement and their relevance to the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Dr Sloam argues that there has been a step-change in youth political participation, as young people have been attracted in large numbers to Jeremy Corbyn’s message. In the 2017 general election, turnout amongst 18-24 year olds rose from 43% in 2015 to 54% and polling data showed that most of them voted Labour.

BBC journalist Laura Lea points out that this is the generation that has borne the brunt of the financial crisis with uncertainty, unemployment and wage freezes being a staple of their adult life. Young people have experienced the tightest pay squeeze in the wake of the financial crisis – with real pay falling by 13%, according to the Resolution Foundation.

And – we add – they will have to face the increasing hazards of climate change.

 

 

 

0

 

 

LEFT WINGERS AND GREENS OF THE WORLD UNITE: Paul Halas

Over the past few years we’ve seen a trend in which the Labour Party has become Greener and the Green Party has become “Leftier”. I fervently wish for further rapprochement.

While feeling despair at the head-in-sand attitudes and empty rhetoric in much of Westminster, Whitehall and the City – especially the City – I was enthralled by a presentation given in my constituency of Stroud last month by Alan Simpson, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell’s advisor on climate change and sustainable economics. If anyone is unfamiliar with his policy ideas, I urge them to look him up and read these essays.

A future Labour government will do its utmost to adopt Simpson’s plans, which include:  

  • local renewal energy cooperatives,
  • an agricultural policy reset to penalise high greenhouse gas emissions,
  • a far more locally-based economy (community wealth building – thriving in many locations and now to be adopted in Stroud),
  • a far more integrated, publicly-owned transport system…
  • and of course real measures to curb tax “avoidance” by the heavyweight national and global corporations, and tackle our hideous income inequality.
  • First and foremost though – greenhouse emissions must be HALVED every ten years.

We should all be taking notice of the wonderful Greta Thunberg’s message

We have to tackle the problems of already having done inestimable damage to the planet right now – but under the Tories there isn’t a hope.

Real change can’t come too soon, and the only way we’re ever going to see real change in the UK is to put a Labour/Green government? into power at the earliest possible opportunity.

I can’t see how diluting the non-Conservative vote at the next general election is going to achieve anything except more Tory-led acceleration to destruction. 

I realise some will find their tribal loyalties tested – but the nightmare we’ve created transcends such petty concerns.

 

 

 

o

Media 104: The fight-back? Seriously flawed FT article on the next 30 years of fossil fuelled energy

The message from the article’s author, Nick Butler: “Loved or not, the energy companies will still be giving us products we need and they will thrive over the next three decades . . . Wind and solar power are of limited value in meeting industrial energy requirements”.

He stresses the continuing weighting of investment in favour of oil and gas against renewables and focuses on the latest long-term international outlook, which “paints a picture of the world to 2050, on the basis of current policy, reasonable expectations of economic and population growth across the world”.

Sounds good: but this report “comes from the US Energy Information Administration — an independent agency in September”. However, according to its hyperlink and Investopedia, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a government agency formed in 1977.

In addition to this incorrect information, the author attribution – ‘energy commentator for the FT and chair of The Policy Institute at King’s College London’ – fails to add his significant previous employment as Senior Policy Adviser in the Prime Ministers policy unit and BP’s Group Vice President for Strategy and Policy.

He then asserts that the EIA report reflects the view of the main companies in the sector as reported in the BP Energy Outlook, 2019 edition.

Wishful thinking?

Not so: a scroll through the report saw no input from such companies and a word search of the report, using the names of three of the largest oil companies, found ‘no results’.

He concedes that the energy transition is indeed happening (see Bloomberg, above) but asserts that its impact is small and “on this analysis will largely remain focused on the generation of electricity”.

The report, Butler continues, gives a picture of two very different worlds.

“On the one hand, in the developed OECD countries energy demand in volume terms thanks to efficiency gains, minimal population growth and public policy — is static to falling and the supply is getting progressively cleaner. In the rapidly growing Asian economies, population increases and the desire to escape poverty are pushing up both demand and emissions shows an inherently unsustainable future. The trends it describes are a recipe for serious global warming and climate instability.”

As the website of UK Oil & Gas PLC (UKOG) reminds us, there is no alternative (TINA): oil is indispensable: it heats homes, provides fuel for water, air and road transport and is used in plastics, fertilisers, detergents, paints and medicines.

Is Butler unaware of research under way to redesign many of these products to eliminate oil use. The use of electric heating is growing and of electric road and waterway transport, mainly ferries? And though emissions will be reduced by increasing localisation of supplies, there will be some need for clean shipping; for nearly three years the first Chinese 2000-tonne electric cargo ship has been in business. Japan and Norway are also working in this sector, with Japan’s Komatsu Ltd developing its first electric-powered digger.

Many commentators see the need to phase out long-distance air travel, but there will always be the need for some air transport during emergencies and the BBC reports progress towards such a capability: July’s Paris Airshow saw the launch of the world’s first all-electric nine-passenger aircraft for which orders are now being placed

Years ago, Dave Lindorff wrote about ‘ecological cataclysm’: “it is useful to look at the hypocrisy of the energy companies when it comes to an even worse crisis threatening life itself on the planet – rapid climate change due to increasing carbon in the atmosphere”.

His advice is more reliable than Butler’s: Watch What Big Oil Does, Not What It Pays to Have Said.

 

 

 

o