2012 - the next lap

This week saw the publication of the latest report by the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee on the London 2012 Games. In and amongst the 81 pages of the report, a number of interesting points were made.

While there has been some positive feedback from the report, there has been a large amount of criticism present.

For instance, the report criticised the Government for awarding a further £5.9 billion in funds without clarifying with the DCMS what will be delivered in return for the expenditure. Similarly, the DCMS came into criticism for having no way to evaluate the Olympic legacy from the Games, despite having highlighted this as one of the main benefits of hosting the Games. In relation to this, the report claimed that there was no clear strategy in place specifying exactly how sporting participation will be increased.

As equally damaging was the committee’s recognition that the budget increase (the original budget was £3.4 billion, the final figure £9.325 billion) has been damaging to confidence in the management of the programme. The phrase “spending money like water” has been doing the rounds.

More positively, the report did highlight that achievements thus far are to be commended, and that there were signs the organisers were working to a realistic timetable. This is welcome news, as once the Beijing Games are finished, public attention, and scrutiny will only intensify on the organisers of 2012.

The 10p Question

Watching PMQs yesterday it crossed my mind – would it have been worse for Gordon Brown not to have backed down, and continued on his mad dash towards the abolition of the 10p tax rate? Or is there honour in making a U-turn, recognising that success is not a viable option, and beating a hasty retreat before any more damage is done to one’s leadership.

In this case I believe Mr. Brown made the right choice – yes, it supplied the Conservatives, and David Cameron, with plenty of ammunition for yesterday’s session, but the damage could have been significantly worse if he’d risked further fracturing his party over this issue.

Furthermore, a rebellion over the 10p tax band would arguably have affected another contentious policy issue that Labour is pushing ahead with - the extended period of detention for terror suspects. Mr. Brown already gives the impression of being an embattled Prime Minister to some, and countering that would be difficult if another row, similar to the one we have seen this week, erupts over an equally high-charged issue.

This affair is far from over, and it will be interesting to see whether Brown can move beyond this matter – questions are already emerging over the feasibility of the concessions he plans to make for those most affected by the 10p tax rate.

Questioning the value of Vitamins

I read an interesting, if somewhat worrying, article on BBC online last week that got me thinking. The review suggested that some vitamins, far from being good for you, may actually shorten your life. Is it time to throw out those dusty jars of multi-vitamins in the cupboard?

The review, of 67 studies, found ‘no convincing evidence’ that antioxidant supplements cut the risk of dying.

The trials involved 233,000 people who were either sick, or healthy and taking supplements for disease prevention. The scientists, at Copenhagen University, said that Vitamins A and E could interfere with the bodies natural defences. Vitamin A supplements were linked to a 16% increased risk of dying, beta carotene to a 7% increased risk, and Vitamin E to a 4% increased risk. It is as yet unclear why these vitamins may be having this negative effect, but the team speculates that beta-carotene may interfere with how the body uses fat. Vitamin C, occupant of oranges all over the world, did not seem to have any effect either way, but the scientists reckon that more work needs to be done in this vitamin.

This is not just an important matter for people’s health; the supplement market is worth over £330 million in the UK.

The Department of Health has said that people should try to get the vitamins they need from their diet and avoid taking large amounts of supplements. However, the Health Supplements Information Service, funded by the association which represents those that sell supplements, responded that people are not able to get everything they need from their diet.

As with many scientific reviews, these findings probably need to be looked at in more detail. Nevertheless, I still think that this highlights the more general issues around health and well being in this country – we should concentrate on eating well and exercising as much as possible – we used to survive without supplements, surely we still can now?

What renewables obligation?

According to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, one of the main objectives of the Climate Change Bill - currently under review in the House of Commons - is “investment in low-carbon fuels and technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, wind, wave and solar power.”

So when I read the story in Saturday’s Guardian, Solar so good for our house, of how the Government cut the maximum grant for low-carbon microgeneration household schemes to £2,500 last year because of the popularity of the scheme, I was disappointed and believe this sends a worrying message about the Government’s commitment to low-carbon initiatives. Rather than decreasing the amount of money going to support low-carbon technologies, the government should be supporting such schemes as much as they can, certainly if they intend on meeting the 15% EU-set target of energy coming from renewable sources by 2020.

The Low Carbon Buildings Programme (LCBP), which is managed for the Department of Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform by the Energy Saving Trust, provides grants for installing microgeneration schemes. These grants, aimed to encourage the use of solar, wind turbine and small hydro technologies, are made available to households, businesses, community organizations, public, private and the non-profit sectors.

All of this sounds promising on the surface, but what the Guardian article revealed is that the UK government has helped less than 300 households install such technologies. Furthermore, the effect of the grant cut has led to demand falling sharply and small companies supplying and installing the necessary equipment going out of business. Germany however has strongly supported low-carbon technologies by helping 130,000 homes get fitted with photovoltaic (PV) solar installations. The price of installing solar panels has now lowered there as a result of high demand. Why the discrepancy?

In the end the article showcased how one family has been able to produce 92% of their electricity usage through solar power. I think this is quite an impressive story and an example of how low-carbon technologies work. All we need now is for the Government to follow through on its renewables obligation.

Morale boost from America

It hasn’t been an easy past couple weeks for Gordon Brown. As the Prime Minister tries to reassure the population that the economic crisis in the UK is under control, he has also had to contend with growing internal criticism. Most noteworthy were the comments made by Labour peer Lord Desai, an economic professor, who accused Brown of looking "weak and indecisive" and suggested David Miliband would make a better leader. The abolition of the 10p tax rate has also created a lot of anger amongst Labour MPs, particularly with MP Angela Smith for Sheffield Hillsborough, who threatened to resign over the issue.

So with the Prime Minister’s leadership skills being called into question and with the May elections just around the corner, I suspect Gordon Brown’s three-day visit to the United States may have come with a big sigh of relief – a chance to escape national scrutiny. The Prime Minister’s second visit to the US included a stop off in New York to address the United Nations, a visit to Wall Street, and of course a visit to Washington to meet with President George Bush. Issues discussed between the two leaders included the global economic crisis, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, climate change and calls to reform the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Although the media proclaim that Gordon Brown’s trip was overshadowed by Pope Benedict’s first visit to America, I think that this visit may have helped boost the Prime Minister’s morale. Mr. Bush called Gordon Brown a “good friend” and applauded the Prime Minister on his excellent handling of the terrorist attack in Glasgow and in fighting terrorism in general. The Prime Minister also had the opportunity to speak one-on-one with the three presidential candidates, a unique chance to see how UK-US relations might evolve in the future, depending on the outcome of the race.

With Obama stating that "The Prime Minister has been a critically important partner for the United States” and expressing how much he was looking forward to working with Gordon Brown in the years ahead, I think the Prime Minister would have been happy to stay overseas even longer, knowing what awaits him at home.

The London Mayoral Elections

There was much excitement around the offices of GBC last week, as both Boris Johnson and David Cameroon visited Richmond Upon Thames to promote the former’s Mayoral Election Candidacy.

To political novices who only know Mr. Johnson for his hilarious turns hosting panel shows, his candidacy might have come as something of a surprise. Instead, alongside his primary challengers Ken Livingstone and Brian Paddick, Boris has played his part in a tight and up until this point, difficult to predict, contest.

One of the areas Ken Livingstone’s tenure will be remembered for centres on the environment – in particular his introduction of the congestion charge. Should he win again on May 1st, he pledges to improve the environment further by introducing a £25 charge on the worst vehicles in the central London congestion charging zone, and a zero charge for the least polluting cars. In response, Boris pledges to scrap the proposed £25 charge and make the current system ‘fairer and more flexible’.

It is areas such as this, which are crucial to the everyday life of Londoners, where the election will be won and lost. Bookmakers recently have had Ken at 4-7, Boris and 5-4, and interestingly Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrats candidate, at 16-1. It is Mr. Paddick, now considered a long-shot by most observers, who might surprise come the end of April – his background, experience, and the aversion of the electorate to either Ken or Boris may all come to count at the crucial hour.

Carbon Labelling

Tesco is getting in on the act with its carbon labelling scheme, which it will launch on the 30th April. It has developed the scheme with brands including Procter and Gamble, and Unilever. The scheme was announced at the Carton conference, organised by BPIF Cartons, on the 8th April.

Tesco has tackled 30 products so far, including orange juice, light bulbs, laundry, potatoes and tomatoes.

The question is though, whether people really understand these labelling schemes – is there not a call for a universal scheme across all products? So people can get used to looking at the carbon information just at they look at nutrition information now.

Consumers have a responsibility to help combat climate change, but they need the right information to enable them to do this.

Access to Higher Education

John Denham, Universities Secretary, announced on Tuesday that all universities will be forced to reveal their admissions policies. This comes amid recent accusations of there being unfair practices in place, claiming that some universities are favouring applicants from privileged backgrounds, while others are said to be engaged in what is being called ‘social engineering’, granting easier access to students from state schools coming from the poorest backgrounds.

The Universities Secretary hopes to restore confidence in the system and has given the Office of Fair Access (Offa) the authority to scrutinise the admissions policies currently in place. There is a possibility that financial penalties will be imposed on those found guilty of unfair practice. I believe that it is very important to guarantee that transparency and accountability exist in the admissions process. Students should be able to feel confident that their application will be looked at in the same manner as all other applications, with the same standards being applied across the board.

However, one thing is to ensure that admissions procedures are fair and another is dealing with the issue of how tuition fees are becoming a significant obstacle for students wishing to attend. An article published by the Guardian on the 14^th of February entitled “Tuition fees favour the rich”, revealed how many students are deciding not to attend because of anxiety over money. Many young people fear the high amount of debt that they will end up accumulating in order to finance their years pursuing higher education.

If the government is really serious about widening university participation, it needs to find a way to support and reach out to those who meet academic requirements but who are staying away because of money. Not only does there need to be more bursaries and scholarships, the already existing ones need to be made more accessible, clear and straightforward. Going into debt shouldn’t be the only the option, even though borrowing money can certainly be seen as a smart investment.

4.4 million Apples a day...

I came across a frightening article on the WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) site this week that said a phenomenal 4.4 million whole apples are being thrown away every day in the UK.

The figures came from the WRAP’s ‘Love Food Hate Waste’ campaign, aimed at tackling food waste in homes across the UK. The figures also show that we throw away nearly £3 billion worth of perfectly good fruit and vegetables in a single year.

The reason for such profligacy? WRAP teamed up with Sainsbury’s to find out, and discovered the primary reason behind such waste was people were not eating food before it went off. Interestingly, the problem is exacerbated because people were not storing the fresh produce in the best place once they got it home.

Waste on such a scale is pretty staggering. Given the emphasis placed on not only eating and living healthily, but reducing one’s carbon footprint in a variety of ways, purchasing produce that no doubt racked up the air miles to reach our plates and then throwing it away is extremely worrying. This is before thought is given to the number of people world-wide who go hungry everyday.

In response to these findings, the Love Food Hate Waste Campaign is trialling new storage guidance to customers Sainsbury’s stores and online. The guidance centres on the following advice – showing how shoppers can keep their food fresh for longer, and inspiring them to use the food in a variety of ways. Should people heed the advice, it will be to the benefit of their health, and the planet’s.

Closing the loopholes

It may be easy to look at the economic growth that has occurred in the UK since the 1970s as a remarkable feat. The UK can be seen as a globalization and capitalist success story. But what the impressive numbers fail to tell is the simultaneous story of the growing gap between rich and poor, and the creation of an increasingly unequal society. Last summer, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation announced that the wealth gap in Britain was the widest it had been in 40 years. As the rich continue to see their salaries rise, the average UK citizen struggles to make do.

In Budget 2008, Alistair Darling committed to taxing non-doms (foreign national living in the UK claiming non-domicile status) £30,000 a year. Although the government did cut £100m off the total revenue it originally promised to collect from non-doms in the Pre-Budget Report, I think that this measure was an important one. Despite the threats from the City saying that this would cause wealthy investors and hedge fund owners to leave the country, the government did not give in to their demands. The presence of foreign investment bankers and entrepreneurs do make a valuable contribution to the economy, but I think it is only fair that they contribute to the country they work in by paying an appropriate and fair amount of taxes. At a time when citizens feel that only the ultra-rich (which include a large percentage of non-domiciles) are benefiting from the current tax system, I think that this move at the very least shows that the government is working towards minimizing the loopholes.

So, Who runs Britain then? Robert Preston, award-winning British journalist, author and broadcaster has written a book entitled exactly that, in which he explores the influence the wealthy are having in shaping British society. Having London as the financial capital is a great asset and is something to be proud of, but what is even more important is to make sure that the majority start reaping the benefits too.

Plastic Planet

Plastic seems to be in the news all the time at the moment, whether for good or bad. Just take the huge supplement that was in the Times on the 1st April, talking about Innovations in Plastics, and the endless news pieces about the evil that is plastic bags.

Indeed, we have all heard the bad stories about plastics disposal. Although paper accounts for most of the trash in landfills by volume, plastics account for 25% of all waste in landfills when buried. To make it worse, a significant amount of plastic is not even properly disposed in landfills and makes its way into the environment, where it takes a very long time to biodegrade. Plastic ends up in the sea from waste discarded by ships, offshore dumping, litter on beaches and waste washed to sea by rivers. Therefore, ingestion of plastic material by seabirds is another horrific problem that we have heard in the news. Plastic is impossible to digest and takes up space in the seabird’s stomach that should be used for food, or can cause an obstruction that starves the bird directly. This plastic is sometimes regurgitated and fed to chicks. A particular example is the albatrosses eating all the plastic toys, lighters and golf balls that end up in the sea. What is more, albatrosses also end up feeding their chicks this plastic material, and they only lay a single egg in a breeding system. This plastic causes physiological stress to chicks and causes the chick to feel full during feedings, reducing its food intake and the chances of survival.

But is also important to remember that plastics have some benefits for the environment too. For example, the use of plastic materials in cars and airplanes reduces their weight and therefore increases their fuel efficiency. Insulating plastics such as styrofoam reduce the amount of energy required to heat and cool homes. To read more about plastic go here

Therefore, as with any material, there appears to be both positive and negative aspects to the environmental impact of plastic. It seems the most important thing is to use the material that is most fit for purpose, and to see plastic as a resource. Hopefully we can then look at the whole lifecycle of plastic, and consumers can take responsibility for the plastic they use, recycling and re-using where possible. This should ensure that the end of a plastic product’s life does not involve rotting in a sea birds stomach.

Bad IDea?

I recently came across the Conservative Party’s online campaigns section. One such campaign is entitled ‘Bad IDea’, setting out a range of arguments against the Government’s phased introduction of identity cards. In the place of the proposed scheme, it is suggested the money is spent on more prison places, more prisoner drug rehabilitation, and a Border Police Force.

Such a campaign is no doubt popular, and reflective of the sense of concern that exists in the UK around ID cards. However, such is the strength of the anti-ID cards campaign that biometric technologies, an essential component of an ID cards system, are being tarred with the same brush.

One argument against ID cards is that once somebody’s card is lost, and with it their biometric identity, it cannot be replaced. Certainly, we are all born with only one set of fingerprints. However, an ID card need not store all the data of a fingerprint. The Treasury recently commissioned a review of the potential private sector uses of the ID card procurement scheme, in which it quite sensibly recommended the amount of data stored should be minimised. For example, only-non unique digital representations of biometric images should be stored.

A more balanced argument, highlighting such safeguards, may be to the benefit of everyone. At the very least, it should move the debate forward.