 |
| ACT TOGETHER - WIN TOGETHER |
Rally against the Pension Cuts
Lunchtime (12pm - 2pm)
John Frost Square, Newport
Thursday 30th June 2011
Monday, 27 June 2011
Sunday, 26 June 2011
ON THE FIDDLE...
The US government announced that 30m barrels, half of the total, would be released from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The UK planned to contribute three million barrels.The release has been designed to reduce the price of oil further in order to protect the economy.Oil Industry analysts have warned that there is a risk the IEA's latest move may hurt relations with major oil exporters i.e OPEC.
In truth any short term economic effect caused by the release of oil reserves will be cancelled over the medium term by a combination of increased demand and the effects of falling production. IEA members are required to hold sufficient stocks of oil to last 90 days without any imports (currently the IEA says its members are holding enough for 146 days or 4.1 billion barrels). IEA members have agreed to make two million barrels of this available every day for 30 days in an effort to increase the amount of oil on the market and therefore reduce the price.
The IEA also says that it will review the market again in 30 days time. The Saudi's incidentally have come out and said that they would be increasing production to meet demand - it will be interesting to see if this actually happens considering the potentially perilous state of production form the Ghawar and Safanyia oilfields. Either way no doubt OPEC will reduce production to maximise their profits and mitigate the IEA's decision.
just for the record as we begin to face the effects of peak oil, it is worth noting that oil consumption in Canada and the United states has grown by 20% since 1980 and is up 63% in Australia and 74% in New Zealand, obviously the Chinese are also using more oil than previously to feed their growing economy. Prior to 2008 the IEA itself said that production form the world's oil wells are is declining at a rate of 3.7% per year. After 2008 the IEA vigorous revision of it's figures and stated this rate of decline actually stands at 6.7%.
Why does the phrase fiddling whilst Rome burns come to mind...
Saturday, 25 June 2011
TWO OUT OF THREE...
Something different is going on in Scotland, not quite under the radar, but nearly! Slowly, but surely, almost quietly and certainty with very little fanfare, the last few Scottish Governments have been been systematically reversing Dr Beeching's cuts to rural rail services. Over the last 30 years, some sixty two railway stations in Scotland have quietly reopened - this number is significantly more than anywhere else in the UK. In December 2009 the Airdrie to Bathgate Line which had been closed to regular passenger traffic since 1956 started to run again. This reopened service brought rail to an area which had lived without it for half a century. Rail re-openings have enjoyed a cross party consensus in Scotland. It helps to have both the powers, the political will and a plan - just imagine what we could do here in Wales with just two out of the three? perhaps we could wait for Carwyn...perhaps not!
Friday, 24 June 2011
FOOD FOR THOUGHT?
Oxfam Cymru claim half of Welsh people have changed their eating habits in the last two years, with 39% having to do so because food prices have rocketed.They suggest that more people in financial distress are approaching food banks for free, short-term supplies (as previously blogged by Leanne Wood AM). The OXFAM survey, which is part of a global study into eating habits in the last two years, comes after the Office for National Statistics revealed rising food inflation was escalating the cost of living.
The hard statistics reveal that a range of foods have undergone sharp rises, with prices of meat up 5.1%, fish up 11.4%, bread and cereals up 5.8%, mineral waters, juices and soft drinks up by 10.3% and jams by 7.5%. Oxfam Cymru says only 60% of Welsh respondents reported having enough to eat on a daily basis – with 39% saying they got enough, most or some of the time. They pointed to global figures, which showed an average 61% getting enough to eat all the time, indicating the Welsh statistics were part of a global problem.
A number of issues are going to impact on food prices, here and in the rest of the world. There is Climate Change, which as temperatures rise, will lead to a fall in crop yields – potentially we are talking of up-to half of their current levels in some African countries. At the same time, extreme weather events like heat waves, droughts and floods will get worse and become more frequent, and the seasons that people rely on to grow crops will get even more unpredictable.
Across the world governments have dragged their feet for too long. We need to start dealing with a situation that's only going to get more urgent. The food price spikes of 2008 are partially related to and being aggravated by land grabs, as wealthy companies have invested heavily in cheap agricultural land in poor countries, often for commercial use. The land that is sold is actually being used by poor families to grow food in many cases.
Poor farmers and their families are often forcibly evicted with little or no warning or compensation, and to make things worse often the land is either left idle by investors who know it will only grow in value, or actually used in ways that reduce food production. So it's time for effective global rules to get land grabs under control – rules which ensure local communities see the benefits of investments and which help make sure that governments provide secure access to land for smallholder farmers, and especially women.
After decades of progress, the number of people without enough to eat is actually increasing, and food price spikes are a big part of the problem. That's because, when you spend up to 75% of your weekly income on food – as many poor families are forced to do – sudden rises have an especially destructive effect. Price spikes have many causes including the changing climate, oil prices, dysfunctional commodities markets, biofuels policies that turn potentially productive crop-lands into fuel for cars rather than fuel for people. Oxfam and a number of other agencies conclusions is that we are facing a whole new challenge.
It's time for governments to actually work together to deal with food price crises effectively and to tackle the problems that mean millions of people can't afford enough to eat. After the best part of one hundred years of so of crop yield increases, crop yields are beginning to flat-line partially because intensive farming can only go so far. We need to focus on the huge untapped potential of small-scale farmers in developing countries and especially of women, who often do most of the work for often scant reward.
The reality is that some 500 million small farms put the food on the plates of some two billion people (one in three of our planets population). With effective government support and a focus on sustainable techniques, productivity can soar. In Vietnam, for instance, the number of hungry people has halved in just 12 years – a transformation which was kick-started by government investment in small farmers previously disadvantaged by the old Soviet style collective farms. It's time to change the way that we in Wales and the rest of the world thinks about growing food.
The hard statistics reveal that a range of foods have undergone sharp rises, with prices of meat up 5.1%, fish up 11.4%, bread and cereals up 5.8%, mineral waters, juices and soft drinks up by 10.3% and jams by 7.5%. Oxfam Cymru says only 60% of Welsh respondents reported having enough to eat on a daily basis – with 39% saying they got enough, most or some of the time. They pointed to global figures, which showed an average 61% getting enough to eat all the time, indicating the Welsh statistics were part of a global problem.
A number of issues are going to impact on food prices, here and in the rest of the world. There is Climate Change, which as temperatures rise, will lead to a fall in crop yields – potentially we are talking of up-to half of their current levels in some African countries. At the same time, extreme weather events like heat waves, droughts and floods will get worse and become more frequent, and the seasons that people rely on to grow crops will get even more unpredictable.
Across the world governments have dragged their feet for too long. We need to start dealing with a situation that's only going to get more urgent. The food price spikes of 2008 are partially related to and being aggravated by land grabs, as wealthy companies have invested heavily in cheap agricultural land in poor countries, often for commercial use. The land that is sold is actually being used by poor families to grow food in many cases.
Poor farmers and their families are often forcibly evicted with little or no warning or compensation, and to make things worse often the land is either left idle by investors who know it will only grow in value, or actually used in ways that reduce food production. So it's time for effective global rules to get land grabs under control – rules which ensure local communities see the benefits of investments and which help make sure that governments provide secure access to land for smallholder farmers, and especially women.
After decades of progress, the number of people without enough to eat is actually increasing, and food price spikes are a big part of the problem. That's because, when you spend up to 75% of your weekly income on food – as many poor families are forced to do – sudden rises have an especially destructive effect. Price spikes have many causes including the changing climate, oil prices, dysfunctional commodities markets, biofuels policies that turn potentially productive crop-lands into fuel for cars rather than fuel for people. Oxfam and a number of other agencies conclusions is that we are facing a whole new challenge.
It's time for governments to actually work together to deal with food price crises effectively and to tackle the problems that mean millions of people can't afford enough to eat. After the best part of one hundred years of so of crop yield increases, crop yields are beginning to flat-line partially because intensive farming can only go so far. We need to focus on the huge untapped potential of small-scale farmers in developing countries and especially of women, who often do most of the work for often scant reward.
The reality is that some 500 million small farms put the food on the plates of some two billion people (one in three of our planets population). With effective government support and a focus on sustainable techniques, productivity can soar. In Vietnam, for instance, the number of hungry people has halved in just 12 years – a transformation which was kick-started by government investment in small farmers previously disadvantaged by the old Soviet style collective farms. It's time to change the way that we in Wales and the rest of the world thinks about growing food.
Thursday, 23 June 2011
WHICH BIT OF 'NO' DON'T YOU GET?
The somewhat incandescent response from the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland football associations to the announcement of Great Britain football teams for the 2012 Olympic Games should not have come as any great surprise to the British Olympic Association (BOA).
The other home nations FA's (outside England) have long made it more than clear that they are absolutely opposed to any suggestion that there be a joint 'British Football Team', and they have justifiably found the tone adopted by the BOA in making the announcement decidedly provocative if not patronising.
There is no new agreement, there was no old one, there is no falling in line and the distinct possibility that hell would have to freeze over before there is one. This is not news the position held by the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish FA's is not a new one.
The basic belief that if the other home footballing nations (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) rally behind the Union flag for the Olympics, then world governing body FIFA may well in time, perhaps not in the next few years but eventually, decide to make the joint team a permanent fixture, is an entirely sound one.
The risk is too great and the price that could be paid far, far too high, regardless of any muttered assurances from Fifa that any participation in a joint Olympic team will have no bearing on their national autonomy, in light of FIFA's instability is absolutely not worth taking.
The other home nations FA's (outside England) have long made it more than clear that they are absolutely opposed to any suggestion that there be a joint 'British Football Team', and they have justifiably found the tone adopted by the BOA in making the announcement decidedly provocative if not patronising.
There is no new agreement, there was no old one, there is no falling in line and the distinct possibility that hell would have to freeze over before there is one. This is not news the position held by the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish FA's is not a new one.
The basic belief that if the other home footballing nations (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) rally behind the Union flag for the Olympics, then world governing body FIFA may well in time, perhaps not in the next few years but eventually, decide to make the joint team a permanent fixture, is an entirely sound one.
The risk is too great and the price that could be paid far, far too high, regardless of any muttered assurances from Fifa that any participation in a joint Olympic team will have no bearing on their national autonomy, in light of FIFA's instability is absolutely not worth taking.
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
HERE WE GO!
The news that Tesco have won their appeal against an initial decision to turn down planning permission for a new store, should come as no surprise. Over 500 people objected to Tesco plans to open an Express store in a dis-used pub, the Black Horse Inn on Somerton Road. The Council planning officers recommended that the application be refused as they are concerned about congestion and road safety issues together with a lack of parking provision.
Local residents have also objected on grounds of impact on existing shops. The Council's planning committee considered the application on 1st April 2009 and rejected the plans. The committee recommended refusal on three grounds - that it would be detrimental to the vitality and viability of nearby retail centres; insufficient parking; substandard access.
The Planning Inspectorate however allowed Tesco to appeal to convert the former Black Horse Inn pub on Somerton Road into an Express store. While I have no doubt that the Tesco PR machine will role out the usual claptrap about creating jobs and boosting the local economy, but there can be little doubt that this new Tesco Express store in Somerton, is part of an aggressive business strategy in the Newport area that will expressly target local shops and small businesses in the local shopping area, with a view to taking their trade. Sadly this is part of a recognised problem which is taking place across Wales and which does not just relate to Tesco but most of the other larger UK wide retail chains.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has noted that the UK loses approximately 2,000 local shops every year and that of this continues then by 2015 there will be no independent retailers left in business, something that effects consumers and communities as they effectively lose any real choice in the marketplace. Over recent years across all of Wales, that once particularly rich mix of local shops, small businesses and local suppliers have come under increasing pressure as the usual suspects in the shape of “identikit” chain stores have replicated themselves across our nation's high streets.
The planning process is being undermined, as when our local authorities fear the cost implications of supermarket applications being taken to appeal after appeal if the original outline planning permission is refused then we are progressing down a slippery slope. When we reach the point that where Councillors may be advised by their officers of the potential costs if a development proposal involving a larger more aggressive retail company is refused and that they could go to appeal - then so much for local democracy!
Local residents have also objected on grounds of impact on existing shops. The Council's planning committee considered the application on 1st April 2009 and rejected the plans. The committee recommended refusal on three grounds - that it would be detrimental to the vitality and viability of nearby retail centres; insufficient parking; substandard access.
The Planning Inspectorate however allowed Tesco to appeal to convert the former Black Horse Inn pub on Somerton Road into an Express store. While I have no doubt that the Tesco PR machine will role out the usual claptrap about creating jobs and boosting the local economy, but there can be little doubt that this new Tesco Express store in Somerton, is part of an aggressive business strategy in the Newport area that will expressly target local shops and small businesses in the local shopping area, with a view to taking their trade. Sadly this is part of a recognised problem which is taking place across Wales and which does not just relate to Tesco but most of the other larger UK wide retail chains.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has noted that the UK loses approximately 2,000 local shops every year and that of this continues then by 2015 there will be no independent retailers left in business, something that effects consumers and communities as they effectively lose any real choice in the marketplace. Over recent years across all of Wales, that once particularly rich mix of local shops, small businesses and local suppliers have come under increasing pressure as the usual suspects in the shape of “identikit” chain stores have replicated themselves across our nation's high streets.
The planning process is being undermined, as when our local authorities fear the cost implications of supermarket applications being taken to appeal after appeal if the original outline planning permission is refused then we are progressing down a slippery slope. When we reach the point that where Councillors may be advised by their officers of the potential costs if a development proposal involving a larger more aggressive retail company is refused and that they could go to appeal - then so much for local democracy!
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
SONS OF BANKERS!
Sometimes you may wonder why people get involved in political life - motivators can not doubt be wide and varied, from righting an obvious wrong, a particular issue (or issues) that need sorting out or fixing, a passion for the environment, social justice, even a somewhat selfish desire to better themselves - while the later is less palatable, it is the case in certain circumstances. For the life of me I can find no obvious reason for getting involved in politics for David Cameron, George Osbourne, Boris Johnson, Nick Clegg, and their ilk - other than a need perhaps to have something to do everyday.
Now, we have been repeatedly told that we are all in it together, sounds nice,but, its not quite true, most of us are very much more in it than some are. The Guardian (05.02.2011) revealed that a number of Con Dem ministers set up blind trusts so that they can continue to profit from financial interests which could present a conflict with their government responsibilities.
Ironically there was a threefold increase in this sort of thing under the Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition government by way of comparison with the previous sleaze tainted New Labour government. The Guardian noted that 16 ministers, including the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, the justice secretary, Ken Clarke, and the cabinet office minister, Francis Maude, put blind trusts in place, as recorded by the official register of ministerial interests.
Do you remember this...
"It is wholly untenable to have millions of people making sacrifices in their living standards only to see the banks getting away scot-free."
Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister, 17 December 2010
and also this...
"Bankers have to realise that the British public helped to bail out the banks and it is very galling when they see bankers pay themselves unjustified bonuses."
David Cameron, Prime Minister, 17 December 2010
The previous New Labour government made much of its light financial regulatory touch, at least until the wheels came spectacularly off the wagon, will the Con Dem's make much of their effective refusal to take any action over banking regulation. Before they were in government and before the last Westminster election Vince Cable (now the Business Secretary) and George Osbourne (now the Chancellor) were at it hammer and tongs as to who was going to be toughest when it came to regulating and controlling the worst excesses of the banks. And since they went into government?
The Con Dem UK Government missed an opportunity to break up and 'privatise' the larger 'publicly owned' financial institutions, they should have sold the shares on the open market with specific quotas on how many shares any one institution can own. From where many people are sat these bloated overgrown banking organisations appear to be a serious block on the ‘free market’ and too busy lining their own pockets.
George Osborne and the Tories appear to have reluctantly gone along with the much publicly stated need to regulate the more unsavoury aspects of the banking sector, but, whether they will actually and eventually do anything is open to question. Perhaps they ought to declare an interest regulating the banks in the City may impinge on the acquisition of future lucrative directorships in City banks unless they have them already that is?
One question that may also remain unanswered is whether or not they will do anything about tax evasion, tax avoidance and the regulation tax havens? It's odd really because the Con Dem's have displayed such zeal in their efforts to chase people on benefits. Sadly I suspect the answer will be no (in relation to tax evasion at least) as any such move would ruffle more than a few feathers in the City and no doubt more than a few awkward questions at dinner party's?
Now, we have been repeatedly told that we are all in it together, sounds nice,but, its not quite true, most of us are very much more in it than some are. The Guardian (05.02.2011) revealed that a number of Con Dem ministers set up blind trusts so that they can continue to profit from financial interests which could present a conflict with their government responsibilities.
Ironically there was a threefold increase in this sort of thing under the Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition government by way of comparison with the previous sleaze tainted New Labour government. The Guardian noted that 16 ministers, including the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, the justice secretary, Ken Clarke, and the cabinet office minister, Francis Maude, put blind trusts in place, as recorded by the official register of ministerial interests.
Do you remember this...
"It is wholly untenable to have millions of people making sacrifices in their living standards only to see the banks getting away scot-free."
Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister, 17 December 2010
and also this...
"Bankers have to realise that the British public helped to bail out the banks and it is very galling when they see bankers pay themselves unjustified bonuses."
David Cameron, Prime Minister, 17 December 2010
The previous New Labour government made much of its light financial regulatory touch, at least until the wheels came spectacularly off the wagon, will the Con Dem's make much of their effective refusal to take any action over banking regulation. Before they were in government and before the last Westminster election Vince Cable (now the Business Secretary) and George Osbourne (now the Chancellor) were at it hammer and tongs as to who was going to be toughest when it came to regulating and controlling the worst excesses of the banks. And since they went into government?
The Con Dem UK Government missed an opportunity to break up and 'privatise' the larger 'publicly owned' financial institutions, they should have sold the shares on the open market with specific quotas on how many shares any one institution can own. From where many people are sat these bloated overgrown banking organisations appear to be a serious block on the ‘free market’ and too busy lining their own pockets.
George Osborne and the Tories appear to have reluctantly gone along with the much publicly stated need to regulate the more unsavoury aspects of the banking sector, but, whether they will actually and eventually do anything is open to question. Perhaps they ought to declare an interest regulating the banks in the City may impinge on the acquisition of future lucrative directorships in City banks unless they have them already that is?
One question that may also remain unanswered is whether or not they will do anything about tax evasion, tax avoidance and the regulation tax havens? It's odd really because the Con Dem's have displayed such zeal in their efforts to chase people on benefits. Sadly I suspect the answer will be no (in relation to tax evasion at least) as any such move would ruffle more than a few feathers in the City and no doubt more than a few awkward questions at dinner party's?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)