A few links.

Paul Street responds to Obama's Nobel Peace Prize (ZNet article)

Al Jazeera reports on the plight of Sri Lankan war refugees kept in "welfare camps" (video).

Landartgenerator.org graphically demonstrates the surface area required to solar power the world & the surface area required to power the world with off shore wind power alone. (For more detail see here)

Strangemaps exposes the inadequacy of using potential GDP to measure of the impact climate change.

The excellent Adam Curtis blogs about the history of the Congo & Kabul

Bensix looks at the Tories and foreign policy

George Monbiot highlights government and military police collusion to prevent justice.

Laurie Penny - inspiring diary piece.

George Osborne - Opportunistic liar

George Osborne recently said,

Labour's secret spending plans, which Gordon Brown never wanted to make public, appear to reveal an income tax bombshell.

However, as Channel 4 News FactCheck reveal:

The figures Osborne quoted don't hide any secret tax-hike bombshell. They are the same numbers put out by the Treasury with the budget, in April.

So not secret.

What about those tax increases?

Some income tax increases, for big earners, were set out in the budget. The most headline-grabbing, a new, higher 50 per cent tax rate on earnings over £150,000 a year, is expected to raise £2.4bn, according to the Treasury's estimates.

Taking away the tax-free personal allowance on high earners is also expected to bring in another £1.5bn.

Which is great, but accounts for just 3.9bn.

According to the figures Osborne released, gross income tax revenues are due to increase from £144.7bn in 2010-11, to £191.8bn in 2013-14; a £47bn, or 32.5 per cent, increase.

So, where does the rest come from? Forecast growth.

George Osborne is complaining about increased income tax revenues generated by taxing the rich and economic recovery whilst trying to make it appear as though there is a 'secret' plan for an 'income tax hike'. His crude attempt to mislead the electorate is an insult. George Osborne is an opportunistic liar.

A few links about the release of the “Lockerbie bomber”

As a blogger, I am still finding my voice. Blogs like In Place of Fear are an inspiration; it is a fantastic blog. Unfortunately, it is criminally undervalued, according to Google Reader it only has three subscribers!

The latest post by Duncan McFarlane (In Place of Fear) is about the release of the “Lockerbie bomber” - (*as is this more recent one). Along with offerings on this topic by Beau Bo D'Or, John Pilger, Paul Mason , septicisle (Obsolete) (parts 1,2,3&4) and this Gerald Scarfe cartoon, it forms my recommended reads on the topic. (Craig Murray offers more of the same).

Update

*Pink links added retrospectively.

This is old but true.

Truths in the face of misinformation (AKA cut the crap)

The British government supports torture.

The Conservative Party is not progressive.

Update

In relation to UK and U.S. complicity in torture, Newsnight interviews former Uzbek intelligence officer.

'Golden Brown' & 'Brown and out' - The policies and perceptions of Gordon Brown

At the risk of fisking Steve Richards’ article, Richards is generous in his description of the Brown government’s achievements and underplays the influence of the economy on public opinion. Nonetheless, it is recommended reading as it highlights that the media and electorate are preoccupied by personality and that the portrayal of Cameron as substantive and progressive is maddeningly deceptive. Richards warns that the problem for the Brown government is that despite some heartening policies, “Policies are easily lost if they do not fuel the prevailing narrative”.

Tony Blair had a genius for making the incremental seem exciting. Between 1994 and 1999, if Blair had announced he was going for a short walk around the garden of No 10, the world would have hailed a revolution in transport policy. So, imagine the excitement if Blair had declared in 1997 that a Labour government would take over greedy train operators, high earners would pay more tax, the free market in energy was over and that we must all plan to pay for care for the elderly, with the well-off paying more.

The present government has announced policies along these lines in recent months and quite a few more, too. Yet it is loathed by voters from left and right. It has no support in the media and is accused of lacking purpose. [...]

The disparity is striking. When Blair was cautiously dumping the referendums on electoral reform and the euro, ruling out any tax rises, keeping to the previous Tory government's spending plans and refusing to touch the privatised railways, he and Labour were hailed for their energetic crusade. Now, by comparison, Brown looks pale and miserable and some of his ministers hide away in a state of indifference - yet they display erratic boldness.

[... In response to increasing taxes for high earners] The papers screamed their disapproval, but polls suggest the move was by far the most popular the government had made for some time. [... The policies] announced in recent months hint at a coherent outlook that would certainly enhance the quality of most voters' lives. [… Yet] voters see only the obvious flaws. Brown is a hopeless communicator who when questioned looks irritated at best and at worst miserable. In public, he is incapable of using humour, a powerful weapon in the political artist's armoury. [...]

The comparison between the adulatory response in 1997 to a timid government and the contempt shown towards one that dares to be bolder shows the limited relevance of policy in shaping perceptions. To reinforce the point, a Conservative Party that has returned to its comfort zone of sweeping spending cuts and Euroscepticism is hailed for its modernisation and seen widely as an agent of change.

Craig Murray on the Conservative’s European Alliance

Craig Murray on the Conservative’s European Alliance

I watched him [Silvio Berlusconi] this morning on EuroNews making a European Election campaign speech. He said: "How do I feel when I see all these non-Italians walking around Milan? When I look around Milan, I think I am in Africa!" […]

Still more alarming, even Berlusconi is not right wing enough for David Cameron's Tories and they have allied themselves with some truly horrible nationalist parties from Eastern Europe.

I was First Secretary at the British Embassy in Warsaw heading the Embassy's political and economic sections. I speak Polish. I can tell you definitively that the Kaczynski's Law and Justice Party - the British Conservative's now main ally in the EU parliament - consists of a large number of anti-Semitic and ultra-conservative Catholic crazies of the worst kind. […]

Kaczynski continually condemns anti-Semitism in public. You might ask yourself why he has to do that. One prominent member of his party (and of ther Sejm) once walked out of a lunch with me in Warsaw where a girl from the Adenauer Foundation was also present, because she was Jewish. I have heard casual anti-Semitism from components of Law and Justice which you would not believe.

Witness William Hague being 'perfectly clear'.

(Accidental) Honesty vs. Less bad economic management

Conservative Health spokesperson, Andrew Lansley, let slip that the Conservatives plan to ring-fence health and aid spending at the expense of a 10% cut for other departments. Labour jumped at the opportunity to cast the Conservatives as spending cutters.

Brown accused the Conservatives of being out of line with received opinion, “The only party that's proposing a cut in public spending is the Conservative party” said Gordon Brown at PMQs. What’s more, Labour proposed increased spending. (In itself, referring to public spending rather than investment is peculiar for frontbenchers.)

As it turns out Gordon Brown was being very misleading, you might even say that he was lying.

Due to the constraints placed on the treasury by the financial crisis, whoever is in government will have little choice about what to do. Both the Conservatives and Labour will do the same thing - protect healthcare expenditure and cut other departments more or less to the same amount, 10%.

The truth has come out and Brown has egg on his face. Cue George Osborne for a dose of piousness,

“The real dividing line is not ‘cut versus investment’, but honesty versus dishonest […] We should have the confidence to tell the public the truth that Britain faces a debt crisis; that real spending will have to be cut, whoever is elected; and that the bills of rising unemployment and the huge interest costs of a soaring national debt means that many government departments will face cuts in their budgets. These are statements of fact and to deny them invites ridicule.”

To the Times’ credit, they acknowledge, albeit fleetingly, that Osborne “gives no specific Conservative spending plans”.

So, is it a case of honest vs. dishonest?

Firstly, ‘honest’ should be prefixed by accidentally, reluctantly or surreptitiously, depending on which is actually the case. I would opt for accidentally given the way in which the Conservatives initially handled Lansley’s admission.

Secondly, there is more to Labour than dishonesty. As bad as Labour have been on the economy, the Conservative would have been far worse. When Brown acted swiftly to support banking when it was most needed Cameron, Osborne and Co. had little response.

Labour’s press management is appalling. Rather than the media focusing on the bold decisions made by Brown in contrast to the Conservatives' reluctance to do anything, the media are focusing on Brown’s petty lies. Labour have themselves to blame.

UPDATE

The day after this post was published Polly Toynbee offered the following advice to Labour:

Talk about the national debt honestly and turn it against the Tories. If Britain really is coming out of recession, keep telling voters the truth: virtually every penny of debt comes from rescuing the country from depression and the knock-on effect of recession. Saving banks that were hours from shutting ATMs and starving the population, then flooding the economy with money to stop a depression, was action strongly supported by the Financial Times and the Economist. The Tories – alone – opposed it and would have plunged us back to the 1930s. Most of the debt is due to recession – when tax revenues dry up and unemployment costs soar. These costs would be phenomenally higher in a long Tory-induced depression. […]

Voters know the Tories will cut with relish anything they dare, but David Cameron will win on competence if he is the only one who seems to face up to the debt. Labour has the best record on the recession and the best record on public services – but no chance if no one believes a word it says.

Be still my beating heart – electoral reform is on the agenda.

The news that Gordon Brown is to give electoral reform “consideration” was leaked in advance of the official announcement. According to Newsnight's Paul Mason, it is a condition placed on Brown for his uncontested leadership. The Alternative Vote system is the one the government favours. Surely, this is to be welcomed by all … surely not that is.

The problem? Nobody can agree on the best electoral system.

Meanwhile it looks like the House of Lords is to become elected. Moving aside the objection that an elected second chamber is not as desirable as most people think (now there is a future blog post to look forward too), is it really wise to reform the second chamber when the future electoral system of the first chamber is unknown?

No voting system is perfect. If the second chamber is to become elected, why not use a different voting system to the one used in the first chamber in order to balance out the faults. For example, a first past the post system in one chamber to deliver a strong government and proportional representation in the other in order to better reflect voter intention.

What will be the outcome? We wait with bated breath.

Krugman on Brown

As is often my want, I thought that I would point in the opposite direction to much of the blogesphere. Paul Krugman, receiver of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has this to say about Gordon Brown:

Do Mr. Brown and his party really deserve blame for the crisis here? Yes and no.

Mr. Brown bought fully into the dogma that the market knows best, that less regulation is more. In 2005 he called for “trust in the responsible company, the engaged employee and the educated consumer” and insisted that regulation should have “not just a light touch but a limited touch.” It might as well have been Alan Greenspan speaking.

There’s no question that this zeal for deregulation set Britain up for a fall. […] But here’s the thing. While Mr. Brown and his party may deserve to be punished, their political opponents don’t deserve to be rewarded.

After all, would a Conservative government have been any less in the thrall of free-market fundamentalism, any more willing to rein in runaway finance, over the past decade? Of course not.

And Mr. Brown’s response to the crisis — a burst of activism to make up for his past passivity — makes sense, whereas that of his opponents does not.

The Brown government has moved aggressively to shore up troubled banks. This has potentially put taxpayers on the hook for large future bills, but the financial situation has stabilized. Mr. Brown has backed the Bank of England, which, like the Federal Reserve, has engaged in unconventional moves to free up credit. And he has shown himself willing to run large budget deficits now, even while scheduling substantial tax increases for the future.

All of this seems to be working. Leading indicators have turned (slightly) positive, suggesting that Britain, whose competitiveness has benefited from the devaluation of the pound, will begin an economic recovery well before the rest of Europe.

Whilst the victories of hateful fascists across Europe are a grotesque articulation of anti-political feeling, resentment & bigotry, the victories of this hateful ensemble is largely symbolic. A loathsome symbol to be despised by all the right-minded and politically aware. They serve as warning to future voters. Yet, for now, they have little power.

In terms of the legislature, the gentle shift of the Europe further rightwards is more potent. The centre-left coalition shrank– the right is even more powerful.

As we reject New Labour we reject the ‘third way’ economics. The even more laissez-fair economics of the right awaits us.

Wales & the Euro Election

I wanted to write a post on how UKIP were going to be a much bigger threat in Wales than people anticipated. I could not afford the time. So here is a post on how people overlooked UKIP’s potential for electoral gain in Wales

Wales is allocated four MEPs. In 2004, the region returned two Labour MEPs, one Conservative MEP and one Plaid Cymru MEP. As UK Polling report pointed out that “For the Liberal Democrats or UKIP to gain an MEP here they would need to get at least 50% of the first placed party’s vote.” So how did UKIP manage it? The results in the 2004 Euro elections were as follows:

Sitting MEPs and 2004 Results

1. Glenys Kinnock (Labour) 297,810 (32.1%) (Will stand down at next election)

2. Jonathan Evans (Conservative) 177,771 (19.1%) (Will stand down at next election)

3. Jill Evans (Plaid Cymru) 159,888 (17.2%)

4. Eluned Morgan (Labour) (148,905) (Will stand down at next election)

UKIP 96,677 (10.4%)

Liberal Democrat 96,116 (10.3%)

Green 32,761 (3.6%)

BNP 27,135 (3.0%)

Forward Wales 17,280 (1.9%)

Christian Democrat 6,821 (0.7%)

Respect 5,427 (0.6%)

Welsh assembly election 2007

Political betting forecast the following results for the Welsh 2009 Euro Election based on Welsh Assembly Regional List 2007.

‘Harry Hayfield on the Euro Elections in Wales’ Political Betting

Votes Cast

Labour 250,000

Conservative 225,000

Plaid 200,000

Liberal Democrats 125,000

British National Party 75,000

United Kingdom Independence Party 50,000

Green Party 35,000

Regional Allocation: Lab 2 (n/c) Con 1 (n/c) Plaid 1 (n/c)

The actual results were

	Votes		MEPs
Party	Total	%	Total	+/-
Conservative	145,193	21.2 (+1.8)	1	0
Labour	138,852	20.3 (-12.2)	1	-1
Plaid Cymru	126,702	18.5 (+1.1)	1	0
UK Independence Party	87,585	12.8 (+2.3)	1	+1
Liberal Democrats	73,082	10.7 (+0.2)	0	0
Green Party	38,160	5.6 (+2.0)	0	0
British National Party	37,114	5.4 (+2.5)	0	0
Christian Party	13,037	1.9 (+1.9)	0	0
Socialist Labour Party	12,402	1.8 (+1.8)	0	0
No2EU	8,600	1.3 (+1.3)	0	0
Jury Team	3,793	0.6 (+0.6)	0	0

So how did he, and others, manage to get his prediction so wrong?

There were several factors.

Unlike most of England, and the last Euro elections in Wales, Wales did not have council elections at the same time as the Euro elections. This meant that turnout was always going to be lower than last time round – a factor not taken into consideration in the above prediction.

Lower turnout favours smaller parties such as UKIP. This effect is exaggerated by the voting system itself providing the smaller party usually miss out on the basis of the popularity of the major parties, as was the case in for UKIP in 2004.

The prediction was based on the 2007 Welsh Assembly results.

Party	Votes	Votes%	+/-%	Euro Elect
Labour	288,954	29.6	-6.9	y
Conservatives	209,153	21.4	2.3	y
Plaid Cymru	204,757	21	1.3	y
Liberal Democrats	114,500	11.7	-1	y
BNP	42,197	4.3	4	y
UKIP	38,490	4	0.5	y
Green	33,803	3.5	-0.1	y
Socialist Labour Party	12,209	1.2	0	y
Others	9,350	1
Welsh Christian Party	8,963	0.9	0.9	n
Communist Party of Britain	3,708	0.4	0.2	n
Christian Peoples Alliance	2,694	0.3	0.3	y
Socialist Alternative	1,865	0.2	0.2	n
Respect	1,792	0.2	0.2	n
English Democrats Party*	1,655	0.2	0.2	n
Veritas	502	0	0	n
Socialist Equality Party	292	0	0	n

Many people do not vote for the same party in different elections. It is quite understandable that the Europhobic Welsh are more likely to vote UKIP in European elections than they are for the national assembly. The same is probably true of Green Party voters.

The Welsh Assembly elections coincided with the council elections, which was reflected in higher turnout. Failing to take this into consideration inevitably lead to Political Betting prediction predicting generous returns for the major parties and the BNP whilst underestimating the support for UKIP and the Greens.

Wales had the most wasted votes of any UK Euro elections region – over 31%. This means that a significant drop in the most popular party, in this case Labour, would seriously advantage the previously non-elected parties providing that they were competitive.

Disillusionment with Labour is high. Popular Labour incumbents were stepping down. The Labour vote in Wales is in freefall. The UKIP electoral success in Wales is not as unlikely as it first appeared.

The fact that UKIP are more popular in Wales than people had anticipated should not have come as a surprise. The graph below, which can be found in Wales section of the parliamentary report on the 2004 Euro Elections, shows the voting changes from the 1999 to the 2004 Euro election. What is not shown on the graph is the turnout.

In Wales, the turnout was significantly higher in 2004 than 1999, due to coinciding with council elections. This would have favoured the big parties and disadvantaged the smaller ones, so the gains made by UKIP, BNP, Greens, are smaller than they would have been had the turnout been lower.

The Euro elections provided a dilemma for disillusioned traditional Labour voting Welsh nationals. Although some parties picked up the disillusioned Labour vote, abstention was the greatest victor. Ultimately, turnout was low – 30%, Labour lost their second Welsh Labour MEP, and UKIP won, despite receiving fewer votes than the previous election where they won none.

UPDATE

Courtesy of syniadau – the percentage change in votes from 2004. Please note this is based on vote not share of vote. The number voting is 25% down (based purely on the numbers voting – not on the percentage of the electorate voting, which would be 11% down). Therefore, a loss 25% is to be expected.

BNP 36.78% Green 16.48% UKIP -9.40% Con -18.33% PC -20.76% LibDem -23.96% Lab -53.38%

Two things can be read from these results

1. The support trend
2. The effect of low turnout

Unsurprisingly, the chart demonstrates that the bigger parties suffered the most abstentions. The BNP’s colossal growth in support in spite of low turnout is a disturbing trend. Hopefully, the effect will be diluted in the general and assembly elections, when turnout ought to be higher. The Green party’s growth, on the other hand is a welcome sight.

As for what this means the 'big four' parties in Wales, ORDOVICIUS demonstrates the trends throughout the different elections.

In a general election, Labour and the Liberal Democrats ought to perform better than they did in th recent Euro election.

For a breakdown of votes into Welsh Westminster constituencies see WalesOnline.

Michael Crick: Alan Johnson's campaign is effectively in place

The Alan Johnson campaign is effectively now in place. People round him are all ready to go once, and if, Gordon Brown steps down.

Mr Johnson has quietly been meeting figures expected to play key roles in his operation, though he is keen to stress to every team member that he is certainly not plotting to get rid of Mr Brown, and does not want to be known as a plotter. [...] let me assure you the Johnson campaign is now ready for someone to press the Go button.

Or so Crick writes in his blog - 'Behind closed doors the Johnson team prepares'

A few links & an explanation

Sorry about the lack of posts of late, unfortunately I have quite a bit of work to do away from this blog – and it will be the case for a couple of weeks.  In the meantime, I shall continue to post links.  Enjoy.

Enemies of Reason looks at the press' reaction to the ruling that British soldiers must be protected by European human rights laws.  'The Human Rights Act is here to save the day!'

 

Mongoose Chronicles reviews Sky1’s new hour-long series called UK Border Force, which observes the operations of the Border Agency. 

[T]hese shows are in danger of encouraging that perspective, (one might argue that the police shows are in similar danger, but that's another post), especially with continuous references to agents being "on the front lines", as if by merely presenting my passport with my brown, foreign hand I represent a potential threat to citizens of the UK.

(Notice too the words to which they've chosen to give prominence on the website graphic: enforcement, asylum seeker, counterfeit, illegal worker, work permit, student visa. Is this the only business of the Border Agency? And what is the association of work permits and student visas with 'counterfeit', 'illegal worker' or even 'asylum seeker', which in these parts might as well be called 'baby eater'? They all fall neatly under the same column, as if we're meant to think, without qualification, that foreign workers and students are threats to security.

Tabloid Watch looks at a biased poll reported in awful newspapers produced on behalf of a right-wing pressure group in think tank’s clothing.  'Deeply flawed poll from Migrationwatch is not questioned by the papers' *

Stephanie Flanders look at the expenses scandal from an economist's point of view. 

[I]f you give someone £100 to buy a chair, you can't say for sure that he bought a chair with your money - even if he shows you the chair, and a receipt. All you can say for sure is that you made him £100 better off, and he has bought a new chair. [...]

If, like so many MPs, your MP has claimed the full amount - around £24,000 in the most recent year, then the point to note is that he or she has had £24,000 a year more to spend. Full stop. [...]

For example, some have said it was unfair that MPs such as David Cameron have escaped criticism for claiming the maximum allowance each year, because their claims were almost entirely made up of mortgage interest and utility bills. Whereas other MPs, possibly with similar necessary expenses, have made much smaller claims, yet faced criticism for the details.

David Cameron could be spending his allowance on underground swimming pools and platinum cycle helmets. All we know is that he has utility bills and mortgage interest to pay of more than £20,000 a year.

I'm sure nobody viewing this site needs reminding but ...

UPDATE

*The comments on the Tabloid Watch are worth a read too. After some further analysis of the figures, which proves them to be even more misleading, Five Chinese Crackers suggests that "they should rename themselves ForeignerWatch, since that's what they're really interested in."

A few links about The Press, Politics & Animal Welfare

Some classic Littlejohn from Five Chinese Crackers

Chicken Yoghurt on the all too often overlooked issue of deportation & the hypocrisy of Gordon Brown in regards to hospices.

Enemies of Reason considers what to do with your BNP leaflet.

The smooth, shiny texture isn't really absorbent enough to wipe your arse with, and there's enough shit in the leaflet already without you needing to add to it. [...]

Incidentally, it was most welcome to see the Daily Mail calling the BNP "vile racists and thugs" today. Unfortunately, their readers appear to have disagreed with this assessment, if you care to have a look at the comments. Oh well, that's the price you pay for telling lies about immigration all the time...

Toynbee links this - but in case anyone missed it, Mark Reckons illustrates that the safer the seat, the more likely the MP is claiming for dodgy expenses.

In Australia there is currently a debate surrounding the welfare of horses involved in Jump Racing. A friend of mine, who is particularly concerned with animal rights, sent me a link to the video below. You might find it distressing.

RSPCA Australia & Animal Liberation have more information.