A new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK has just been given the go-ahead by the government (BBC News: New nuclear plants get go-ahead). Nice timing for the government, coming so soon after hikes in the price of energy - notably electricity and gas for home use, and the continuing increases in the price of oil (and petrol).
The Establishment do have a point when they say the hike in energy prices is partly due to price rises and crises to do with imported fuel, notably gas and oil. (It's also partly due to a hike in the fat profits of the energy companies, but that's another story!) However, the UK's energy prices being at the mercy of foreign suppliers, is the Establishment's own fault, for two main reasons.
Firstly, very little has been done to encourage self-sufficiency, in fact the reverse. Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, the UK's coal industry was decimated, and thousands of miners were made unemployed and mining communities devastated - as electricity generation first started to use cheap imported coal, and then moved to oil and gas-powered electricity generators.
More recently, too little effort has been made to move towards renewable energy such as wind power - despite the UK having one of the most abundant sources of wind energy in Europe. Too little is done to encourage and, more importantly, enable, energy conservation (eg making insulation etc affordable to working class people).
Secondly, some of the blame for the hyper-inflation in fuel prices must lie with Western international policy. The Iraq war and occupation, and threats of military action against Iran, are causing uncertainty (to put it mildly) for oil supplies. The occupation of Afghanistan, and resistance thereto, will have implications for the security of gas pipelines in the region and, more importantly, relations with former Soviet republics in the region - Russia included (who supply a fair percentage of the natural gas consumed by the West).
In both cases, the rush to go nuclear is not a step in the right direction. Ecological concerns (of which there are many) aside, nuclear power will not enhance the UK's energy self-sufficiency. Uranium, like gas and oil, is imported - making its supply and price, potentially, just as much at the mercy of foreign suppliers. Nor is nuclear power cheap; it is actually more expensive than wind-produced electricity, let alone coal-produced. It just seems cheap because it is heavily subsidised by the government. Why?
The real reason for the Establishments love for nuclear power is that it supplies weapons-grade material, as used in nuclear weapons. Which is why the go-ahead for the new nuclear power stations comes "hot on the heels" of the government's decision to replace/upgrade the Trident nuclear weapons system. And Trident is a symptom of the Establishment's imperialist foreign policy, which has aggravated the international tensions responsible for the unstable energy supply and price!
Saturday, 12 January 2008
Colourful Balls-up and the bad dream academy
So the Schools secretary, Ed Balls, doesn't know the correct order of the colours in a rainbow (BBC News: Rainbow error makes Balls blush)
I guess that's hardly surprising, when you consider how hard it is to distinguish New Labour red from Tory true blue :-P
Sadly, this is not the only mistake the government have made over education. In many areas, including the north Derbyshire town of Shirebrook, the private sector is being introduced into schools in a big way. Rather than old, dilapidated school buildings being replaced using public funds, the existing schools are being replaced by private "academies". (For more details, check out the Anti-Academies Alliance)
When a school becomes an Academy, the private "sponsor" not only owns the school buildings and even the land, they also dictate the school curriculum and admissions policy. Sponsors of academies include Carphone Warehouse and the used car dealer Vardy, what do they know about running schools ?!? Another Academy is sponsored by an evangelistic Christian fundamentalist. And can we be sure that, in the not too distant future, Academies won't be run by horribly right-wing companies which discriminate against minority groups? I myself have in the past experiencd disability discrimination from a computer training company - heaven forbid they may end up running an Academy :-(
What we need are schools run by the community, by the teachers, parents and, last but not least, the students themselves. Paid for by taxing the rich - not inviting them to re-create the schools, as "educational production-lines" creating future workers for their own companies.
I guess that's hardly surprising, when you consider how hard it is to distinguish New Labour red from Tory true blue :-P
Sadly, this is not the only mistake the government have made over education. In many areas, including the north Derbyshire town of Shirebrook, the private sector is being introduced into schools in a big way. Rather than old, dilapidated school buildings being replaced using public funds, the existing schools are being replaced by private "academies". (For more details, check out the Anti-Academies Alliance)
When a school becomes an Academy, the private "sponsor" not only owns the school buildings and even the land, they also dictate the school curriculum and admissions policy. Sponsors of academies include Carphone Warehouse and the used car dealer Vardy, what do they know about running schools ?!? Another Academy is sponsored by an evangelistic Christian fundamentalist. And can we be sure that, in the not too distant future, Academies won't be run by horribly right-wing companies which discriminate against minority groups? I myself have in the past experiencd disability discrimination from a computer training company - heaven forbid they may end up running an Academy :-(
What we need are schools run by the community, by the teachers, parents and, last but not least, the students themselves. Paid for by taxing the rich - not inviting them to re-create the schools, as "educational production-lines" creating future workers for their own companies.
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
Establishment parties' race to the gutter
As the tories attack first Incapacity Benefit claimants and then job seekers (BBC News: Tories plan 'work for benefits'), I am reminded of the Tory government of the 1980s into the mid 1990s. Such right-wing attacks on working class people who have been failed by the capitalist system, were and are the true face of the Conservatives - despite Cameron's attempts to give the Tory party an image make-over.
Of course, New Labour have continued such attacks - including attacks on incapacity benefit - with gusto. Little wonder, then, New Labour's only option is to attack the Tories for 'plagiarising' their policies. (A 'plagiarism' on both their houses, if you ask me :-P )
So far, the Lib Dems have taken a line to the left of both the Tories and Labour (piss easy!), describing the Tory proposals as "hollow rhetoric designed to sound tough rather than helping people back to work". So far so good, although it will be very interesting to see how the Lib Dems' policies develop, now Nick Clegg (a moderniser) is in charge. I see Clegg has hired the man who ran Thatcher's advertising campaign in the 1987 election (Clegg hires Thatcher campaign man); OK, so it's not quite on a par with inviting Thatcher to Downing Street and discussing policy with her over dinner, but it still ain't a good omen!
To overcome the right-wing attacks on us by all the Establishment parties, we need a real alternative. Thankfully, we've still got one. Respect hasn't gone away, and is once again coming up fighting. We are standing a candidate in a Preston council by-election in February (Socialist Worker: Join the Respect campaign in key Preston council by-election). I urge all readers who can, to get involved in this campaign - a victory, or at least a good showing for Respect, in this by-election, will help us immensely when it comes to the main council elections in May, and the general election in a couple of years time.
Of course, New Labour have continued such attacks - including attacks on incapacity benefit - with gusto. Little wonder, then, New Labour's only option is to attack the Tories for 'plagiarising' their policies. (A 'plagiarism' on both their houses, if you ask me :-P )
So far, the Lib Dems have taken a line to the left of both the Tories and Labour (piss easy!), describing the Tory proposals as "hollow rhetoric designed to sound tough rather than helping people back to work". So far so good, although it will be very interesting to see how the Lib Dems' policies develop, now Nick Clegg (a moderniser) is in charge. I see Clegg has hired the man who ran Thatcher's advertising campaign in the 1987 election (Clegg hires Thatcher campaign man); OK, so it's not quite on a par with inviting Thatcher to Downing Street and discussing policy with her over dinner, but it still ain't a good omen!
To overcome the right-wing attacks on us by all the Establishment parties, we need a real alternative. Thankfully, we've still got one. Respect hasn't gone away, and is once again coming up fighting. We are standing a candidate in a Preston council by-election in February (Socialist Worker: Join the Respect campaign in key Preston council by-election). I urge all readers who can, to get involved in this campaign - a victory, or at least a good showing for Respect, in this by-election, will help us immensely when it comes to the main council elections in May, and the general election in a couple of years time.
Tuesday, 1 January 2008
Web of control
I was glad to see the Australian Tory government of Howard voted out, if only for their role in supporting the occupation of Iraq. Yet, so soon after their election victory, Australia's new Labor government is going the same way as its British namesake.
They want internet service providers in Australia to filter web content, the stated aim being to protect families from pornography and violent web content (BBC News: Australia plans tough web rules). This move has been condemned by civil libertarians, but the Australian telecommunications minister, Stephen Conroy, is dismissive - saying that "if people equated freedom of speech with watching child pornography" he would disagree with them.
Child pornography (indeed paedophilia in general) has many parallels with terrorism; universally disliked and virtually impossible to defend, it is often used as the "thin end of the wedge" to drive through measures which may potentially have draconian consequences.
In this case, as soon as the state starts encouraging internet censorship, it is unlikely to stop with child porn. Will they then block file sharing sites, unlicenced web broadcasters and podcasters, left-wing or other anti-Establishment political sites? When I see how anti-terrorism legislation has been abused, I am not so sure :-(
As for protecting families and children from porn and violent images, there are already several programs which can be used, many of them free, such as KidSurf, Kidsplorer, etc.
I find myself wondering, why is Australia one of the first countries to consider such a move? Could it have anything to do with Australia being home to the media baron Rupert Murdoch - who has more time for populism than he has for human rights (his News of the World newspaper in the UK fuelled the notorious paedophile witch hunts back in 2000, and his papers regularly vilify immigrants in the name of "protecting us from terrorism")? After all, Mr Murdoch seems to exert a lot of political influence, not least upon the UK Labour Party. He couldn't possibly be exerting such influence on their Australian namesake, could he?
They want internet service providers in Australia to filter web content, the stated aim being to protect families from pornography and violent web content (BBC News: Australia plans tough web rules). This move has been condemned by civil libertarians, but the Australian telecommunications minister, Stephen Conroy, is dismissive - saying that "if people equated freedom of speech with watching child pornography" he would disagree with them.
Child pornography (indeed paedophilia in general) has many parallels with terrorism; universally disliked and virtually impossible to defend, it is often used as the "thin end of the wedge" to drive through measures which may potentially have draconian consequences.
In this case, as soon as the state starts encouraging internet censorship, it is unlikely to stop with child porn. Will they then block file sharing sites, unlicenced web broadcasters and podcasters, left-wing or other anti-Establishment political sites? When I see how anti-terrorism legislation has been abused, I am not so sure :-(
As for protecting families and children from porn and violent images, there are already several programs which can be used, many of them free, such as KidSurf, Kidsplorer, etc.
I find myself wondering, why is Australia one of the first countries to consider such a move? Could it have anything to do with Australia being home to the media baron Rupert Murdoch - who has more time for populism than he has for human rights (his News of the World newspaper in the UK fuelled the notorious paedophile witch hunts back in 2000, and his papers regularly vilify immigrants in the name of "protecting us from terrorism")? After all, Mr Murdoch seems to exert a lot of political influence, not least upon the UK Labour Party. He couldn't possibly be exerting such influence on their Australian namesake, could he?
Monday, 31 December 2007
You don't know Jack, Straw!
I've never been a fan of Jack Straw. In 1996, even before New Labour were elected, he enraged me with his (later implemented) plans for curfews on young people (my views on curfews can be found at the No Curfews On Kids website). And while in government, he has proved to be a horrible right-winger.
So alarm bells rang when he made his recent comments that the Tories are 'resonating' with the British public (BBC News: Tories 'resonating', admits Straw). He then says New Labour must 'adapt' to survive; I fear by that, he means the government must move even further to the right-wing.
His out-of-touch comments echo the excuse given by the government and the Establishment to explain the low voter turnout back in 2001, that people were not voting because they were "contented". As if the many people who had lost jobs when several factories (eg Ericsson's UK mobile phone factories) closed, the people with disabilities who were having their benefits attacked, and others , were 'contented'!!!
This time, to be fair, Jack Straw does acknowledge "the government's recent woes" - although he fails to mention that the New Labour government has been the best-selling (miaou!) author of its misfortunes.
Yes, the Tories are ahead in the opinion polls. But that is less likely to be due to the Tories gaining in popularity, and is more likely due to the other parties failing to gain from the government's growing unpopularity. The Liberal Democrats have had a question-mark hanging over them during the leadership contest, as it was impossible to know what policies their next leader would pursue. The Green Party have been deciding whether to have a leader at all (personally I think they would have been better off staying without a single leader). UKIP never really recovered from when their leader, Robert Killjoy Sulk, took off a few years ago, to form Veritass. Respect are still recovering from when their leader took off, and took a substantial number of members with him. On a happier note, the BNP has split in two (detailed on the Stop The BNP website), following internal strife (Night of the Long Handbags, perhaps :-P)
But none of this makes the Tories a good alternative. After a brief and shallow attempt by Cameron to move the Tories away from Thatcher and Major, the party has reverted to its nasty right-wing self, with such right-wing proposals as the imprisonment of immigrants who overstay their visa. And there have been rumblings of disquiet among a number of traditional Tories, who dislike Cameron's attempts to modernise the party (for better or for worse). So, in the longer term, the Tories may well suffer the same in-fighting which has plagued the other parties lately.
In a way, Straw is right to say that "the government must adapt in order to survive". It must stop pandering to the capitalist Establishment, and start listening to the working class people who elected it in the first place!
So alarm bells rang when he made his recent comments that the Tories are 'resonating' with the British public (BBC News: Tories 'resonating', admits Straw). He then says New Labour must 'adapt' to survive; I fear by that, he means the government must move even further to the right-wing.
His out-of-touch comments echo the excuse given by the government and the Establishment to explain the low voter turnout back in 2001, that people were not voting because they were "contented". As if the many people who had lost jobs when several factories (eg Ericsson's UK mobile phone factories) closed, the people with disabilities who were having their benefits attacked, and others , were 'contented'!!!
This time, to be fair, Jack Straw does acknowledge "the government's recent woes" - although he fails to mention that the New Labour government has been the best-selling (miaou!) author of its misfortunes.
Yes, the Tories are ahead in the opinion polls. But that is less likely to be due to the Tories gaining in popularity, and is more likely due to the other parties failing to gain from the government's growing unpopularity. The Liberal Democrats have had a question-mark hanging over them during the leadership contest, as it was impossible to know what policies their next leader would pursue. The Green Party have been deciding whether to have a leader at all (personally I think they would have been better off staying without a single leader). UKIP never really recovered from when their leader, Robert Killjoy Sulk, took off a few years ago, to form Veritass. Respect are still recovering from when their leader took off, and took a substantial number of members with him. On a happier note, the BNP has split in two (detailed on the Stop The BNP website), following internal strife (Night of the Long Handbags, perhaps :-P)
But none of this makes the Tories a good alternative. After a brief and shallow attempt by Cameron to move the Tories away from Thatcher and Major, the party has reverted to its nasty right-wing self, with such right-wing proposals as the imprisonment of immigrants who overstay their visa. And there have been rumblings of disquiet among a number of traditional Tories, who dislike Cameron's attempts to modernise the party (for better or for worse). So, in the longer term, the Tories may well suffer the same in-fighting which has plagued the other parties lately.
In a way, Straw is right to say that "the government must adapt in order to survive". It must stop pandering to the capitalist Establishment, and start listening to the working class people who elected it in the first place!
Sunday, 16 December 2007
Solidarity with Tommy Sheridan against the Establishment
Tommy Sheridan, the founder of the left-wing Solidarity party in Scotland, has been arrested on charges of Perjury (BBC News: Sheridan charged in perjury probe). These charges date back to August 2006, when he successfully sued Murdoch's News Of The World newspaper (hardly a bastion of the truth!) for libel.
This won't be the first time the Establishment have launched a vindictive campaign against someone who has opposed them and exposed their lies. A similar campaign was launched against George Galloway, the founder of Respect; the capitalist Establishment tried time and time again to frame him on allegations that he was in support of, and even took money from, Saddam Hussein's regime. However disappointed I am with the split within Respect, I remain certain that Galloway was not involved in any corruption to do with Saddam Hussein or Iraqi oil.
It also seems a bit too coincidental that Sheridan has been arrested now of all times. Just as the government are in deep $#!t over missing CDs, dodgy donations, the return of fuel protests, and a number of strikes and protests. Surely they wouldn't be trying to recover support among Scottish workers by discrediting the left-wing opposition, could they ?!?
This won't be the first time the Establishment have launched a vindictive campaign against someone who has opposed them and exposed their lies. A similar campaign was launched against George Galloway, the founder of Respect; the capitalist Establishment tried time and time again to frame him on allegations that he was in support of, and even took money from, Saddam Hussein's regime. However disappointed I am with the split within Respect, I remain certain that Galloway was not involved in any corruption to do with Saddam Hussein or Iraqi oil.
It also seems a bit too coincidental that Sheridan has been arrested now of all times. Just as the government are in deep $#!t over missing CDs, dodgy donations, the return of fuel protests, and a number of strikes and protests. Surely they wouldn't be trying to recover support among Scottish workers by discrediting the left-wing opposition, could they ?!?
Sunday, 25 November 2007
Swimming against a tide of hate
It's not often I agree with something I read in the Daily Telegraph. (No, this has absolutely nothing to do with Respect and the split between the SWP and George Galloway, lol). Or have any sympathy for the military. But then I read the Daily Telegraph's Disabled veterans jeered at swimming pool news report.
It really is appalling how common disability prejudice is in our supposedly "civilised" society, and how deep it runs. This ignorance is far from unprecedented; as far back as 1998 I was banned from using certain facilities at a local swimming pool because of my disability, and 2 years ago the parents of a disabled girl (involved with the local "A pool for Megan" charity) were abused by other parents at a local country park for "scaring their kids".
What is unusual this time is that disabled combat veterans - normally treated as heroes, even by the Establishment - are the subject of such abuse. It is true that our soldiers - who have been recklessly sent to fight illegal, immoral and dangerous wars by our government, for the benefit of the British and American capitalist Establishments, and have been killed and maimed for oil - deserve far better than this!
Yet it does feel bitterly ironic that disabled military veterans are now on the receiving end of such prejudice; back in 2000, a heavily-charged debate about whether people with disabilities should be employed in non-combat jobs within the armed forces flared up, as a result of General Guthrie (then head of the British Army) decrying such a possibility. (My views on this issue can be found at Red Disability's Disability and the British Armed Forces article - which has itself attracted an amount of feedback, both positive and negative).
The usual myth parroted by the Establishment is that disability prejudice is a part of "human nature" and therefore "apolitical". But disability discrimination and prejudice are very much a product of capitalism and propagated by the capitalist Establishment - my views on that matter can be found in more detail on Red Disability's Is Human Nature a barrier to Disability Rights article.
More recently, it seems too coincidental that disability prejudice is rearing its ugly head again, so soon after the government has announced plans for yet another attack on Incapacity Benefit claimants. Apolitical? Maybe. Maybe the German Nazis sent over 100, 000 disabled people to the gas chambers just for a laugh ...
The individual parents responsible for such abuse should be dealt with; what I find "scary" is that such parents are not just brainwashed themselves, they are actively helping the Establishment to brainwash their kids with such poisonous prejudice. (Although the idea of "naming and shaming" them goes even further than my idea, mooted in July in my Register of emotion article on this blog, for a "hate crime offenders register"!)
But to stop others like them, we must first get rid of the root cause not just of disability prejudice (see Red Disability's Got a problem? article) but also of racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, and countless other forms of oppression. Namely, the capitalist system.
It really is appalling how common disability prejudice is in our supposedly "civilised" society, and how deep it runs. This ignorance is far from unprecedented; as far back as 1998 I was banned from using certain facilities at a local swimming pool because of my disability, and 2 years ago the parents of a disabled girl (involved with the local "A pool for Megan" charity) were abused by other parents at a local country park for "scaring their kids".
What is unusual this time is that disabled combat veterans - normally treated as heroes, even by the Establishment - are the subject of such abuse. It is true that our soldiers - who have been recklessly sent to fight illegal, immoral and dangerous wars by our government, for the benefit of the British and American capitalist Establishments, and have been killed and maimed for oil - deserve far better than this!
Yet it does feel bitterly ironic that disabled military veterans are now on the receiving end of such prejudice; back in 2000, a heavily-charged debate about whether people with disabilities should be employed in non-combat jobs within the armed forces flared up, as a result of General Guthrie (then head of the British Army) decrying such a possibility. (My views on this issue can be found at Red Disability's Disability and the British Armed Forces article - which has itself attracted an amount of feedback, both positive and negative).
The usual myth parroted by the Establishment is that disability prejudice is a part of "human nature" and therefore "apolitical". But disability discrimination and prejudice are very much a product of capitalism and propagated by the capitalist Establishment - my views on that matter can be found in more detail on Red Disability's Is Human Nature a barrier to Disability Rights article.
More recently, it seems too coincidental that disability prejudice is rearing its ugly head again, so soon after the government has announced plans for yet another attack on Incapacity Benefit claimants. Apolitical? Maybe. Maybe the German Nazis sent over 100, 000 disabled people to the gas chambers just for a laugh ...
The individual parents responsible for such abuse should be dealt with; what I find "scary" is that such parents are not just brainwashed themselves, they are actively helping the Establishment to brainwash their kids with such poisonous prejudice. (Although the idea of "naming and shaming" them goes even further than my idea, mooted in July in my Register of emotion article on this blog, for a "hate crime offenders register"!)
But to stop others like them, we must first get rid of the root cause not just of disability prejudice (see Red Disability's Got a problem? article) but also of racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, and countless other forms of oppression. Namely, the capitalist system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
