I for one am struggling to see the point of David Davis recent resignation and re-election circus. Surely there are other ways to take a stand? But lets have a look at the facts first, and maybe we can then see what is going on in his head! (see here for more details)
Davis resigned last month after Government proposals for detaining terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge were approved by the Commons, and announced he would seek re-election on the issue of civil liberties. On the evening of the 10th July, the former Shadow Home Secretary was returned to Parliament as MP for Haltemprice and Howden with a majority of 15,355. Davis says that expanding the DNA database will be his next battle.
Turnout in the by election was down to just over 34 per cent in yesterday's poll, compared to 70.2 per cent in the 2005 general election, allowing some of Mr Davis's opponents to claim that his resignation and re-election was farsical. Neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats stood in the by election.
According to one estimate, the by-election process has cost taxpayers more than £200,000. Davis has dismissed criticism over the cost of this forced by-election, saying that he has taken a stand on principle. Davis himself admits his decision to resign has very likely cost his place in cabinet and any place in future cabinet as a result, but still considers the move worthwhile.
So what is the actual reason behind all this? To my mind there are two possibilities. Either it is really a matter of principle, and he views potential political suicide as a reasonable price to pay to bring the matter to the public’s attention. Or it may all be a very sly political move, staking his claim for future political changes. Only time will tell.
Friday, 11 July 2008
Thursday, 10 July 2008
Off-target?
Environmentalists see the G8 Summit’s pledge to fight climate change by cutting carbon emissions by at least 50% by 2050 as ‘meaningless’ without any targets. Without any numerical or medium term targets for 2020, environmental campaigners see this declaration as lacking concrete and serious commitment on behalf of the Group of Eight leaders. Greenpeace described the meeting as a “real diversion from real action on climate change”.
The G8 nations - The United States, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia – ended their three day summit yesterday, in the Japanese resort of Lake Toya, Japan. Besides the usual protests that normally arise at meetings that bring together the richest nations of the world, several problems arose along the way.
First, despite the fact that the Japanese Prime Minister, Yasuo Fukuda, hoped that this year’s Summit main agenda and focus would be an environmental one, two pressing global issues were difficult to ignore. The worrying rising price of fuel and rising cost of food have become key issues on all countries’ agendas.
The other main challenge of the Summit was reaching a consensus on what each country should be doing to help minimize the effect of climate change. Whose responsibility is it - everyone’s or just developed countries? The Americans want to see carbon emission reductions from developing countries such as China and India first, before signing up for any drastic cuts. While the Europeans, on the other hand, believe that developed nations need to be the first to commit to signing specific reduction targets.
It is clear then that the outcome the G8 Summit in Japan differs depending on who you are speaking with. The White House’s statement yesterday which applauded this year’s Summit for having achieved a major step forward for the environment is a far cry from environmental groups’ reaction. The biggest divide remains between developed and developing countries, who are still struggling to agree on a uniform target and objective date. Developing countries took part in a meeting of 16 major economies held on the fringes of the G8’s three-day summit in Hokkaido, which revealed that not all countries are ready to sign on to the 2050 goal, including China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa.
I believe that developed countries need to set a precedent and lead the way in environmental action as they have the resources and technology at their disposal. The Kyoto Protocol will start to expire in 2012, and I hope that the momentum with be there in December 2009 when a new climate change accord is set to be written in Copenhagen, Denmark. Leadership is desperately needed and I think that the G8 should demonstrate how climate change can be tackled.
The G8 nations - The United States, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia – ended their three day summit yesterday, in the Japanese resort of Lake Toya, Japan. Besides the usual protests that normally arise at meetings that bring together the richest nations of the world, several problems arose along the way.
First, despite the fact that the Japanese Prime Minister, Yasuo Fukuda, hoped that this year’s Summit main agenda and focus would be an environmental one, two pressing global issues were difficult to ignore. The worrying rising price of fuel and rising cost of food have become key issues on all countries’ agendas.
The other main challenge of the Summit was reaching a consensus on what each country should be doing to help minimize the effect of climate change. Whose responsibility is it - everyone’s or just developed countries? The Americans want to see carbon emission reductions from developing countries such as China and India first, before signing up for any drastic cuts. While the Europeans, on the other hand, believe that developed nations need to be the first to commit to signing specific reduction targets.
It is clear then that the outcome the G8 Summit in Japan differs depending on who you are speaking with. The White House’s statement yesterday which applauded this year’s Summit for having achieved a major step forward for the environment is a far cry from environmental groups’ reaction. The biggest divide remains between developed and developing countries, who are still struggling to agree on a uniform target and objective date. Developing countries took part in a meeting of 16 major economies held on the fringes of the G8’s three-day summit in Hokkaido, which revealed that not all countries are ready to sign on to the 2050 goal, including China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa.
I believe that developed countries need to set a precedent and lead the way in environmental action as they have the resources and technology at their disposal. The Kyoto Protocol will start to expire in 2012, and I hope that the momentum with be there in December 2009 when a new climate change accord is set to be written in Copenhagen, Denmark. Leadership is desperately needed and I think that the G8 should demonstrate how climate change can be tackled.
Friday, 27 June 2008
Apologies made, can Labour turn it around?
No more hiding allowed, the Government finally faces up to the fact that they have failed miserably in their management of data handling. In the Commons on Wednesday, Alistair Darling had to apologize for the “serious institutional deficiencies” after four independent reports revealed the extent to which data protection and security have been inadequate across Whitehall.
Fittingly, just the day before, I attended an event at Westminster on the topic of ‘Data Security & Information Assurance’, hosted by the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee (PITCOM). The Chairman of the Cross-Departmental Committee on IT and Information Security, the RT Hon Paul Murphy MP, chaired the meeting and spoke about what he thought needed to be done in order to make data security a priority across all departments. The topic attracted a crowd, with not an empty seat to be had in the committee room.
Many of the points that Mr. Murphy touched upon, such as the importance of mandatory information training, working together across departments, regaining the public’s trust, and implementing stricter security measures, were echoed in the following day’s reports. The Information Commissioner’s Office, the data watchdog, warned that improvements needed to be made without delay, as some departments were even at risk of facing prosecution because of “deplorable failures”.
I strongly welcome the publications of these reports as they have forced the Government and the Civil Service to acknowledge that the issue of data security is a serious one. In an age where we share and give out our personal information almost on a daily basis, the Government must implement the necessary security measures. This matter will only become more serious with time, as data sharing continues to become more widespread.
With today marking the one year anniversary of Gordon Brown in power - the Labour party unfortunately has a lot more than just this one issue at stake. The results of the Henley by-election came out this morning, revealing a disastrous fifth place finish for Labour, winning less than 5% of the vote. So with little to celebrate on this anniversary, the Prime Minister faces pressure from all sides and on all issues. Will he be able to endure another defeat? The Labour party definitely needs a victory, small or large, in order to stop the increasingly popular Conservative train. Why not start with the issue of data security?
Fittingly, just the day before, I attended an event at Westminster on the topic of ‘Data Security & Information Assurance’, hosted by the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee (PITCOM). The Chairman of the Cross-Departmental Committee on IT and Information Security, the RT Hon Paul Murphy MP, chaired the meeting and spoke about what he thought needed to be done in order to make data security a priority across all departments. The topic attracted a crowd, with not an empty seat to be had in the committee room.
Many of the points that Mr. Murphy touched upon, such as the importance of mandatory information training, working together across departments, regaining the public’s trust, and implementing stricter security measures, were echoed in the following day’s reports. The Information Commissioner’s Office, the data watchdog, warned that improvements needed to be made without delay, as some departments were even at risk of facing prosecution because of “deplorable failures”.
I strongly welcome the publications of these reports as they have forced the Government and the Civil Service to acknowledge that the issue of data security is a serious one. In an age where we share and give out our personal information almost on a daily basis, the Government must implement the necessary security measures. This matter will only become more serious with time, as data sharing continues to become more widespread.
With today marking the one year anniversary of Gordon Brown in power - the Labour party unfortunately has a lot more than just this one issue at stake. The results of the Henley by-election came out this morning, revealing a disastrous fifth place finish for Labour, winning less than 5% of the vote. So with little to celebrate on this anniversary, the Prime Minister faces pressure from all sides and on all issues. Will he be able to endure another defeat? The Labour party definitely needs a victory, small or large, in order to stop the increasingly popular Conservative train. Why not start with the issue of data security?
Friday, 20 June 2008
Inflation, inflation
A warning of tough times ahead was made loud and clear last night when the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, spoke to bankers and merchants last night at the Lord Mayor’s dinner. The speeches delivered at this important annual event in the financial calendar, held at Mansion House, left little room for cheer. The headline in the Financial Times today sombrely read, “King and Darling issue bleak forecast”.
King and Darling explained that the country had to brace itself for the harsh realities of below-inflation pay rises, more expense mortgages, as well as rising fuel and food prices. Mr. King did not try to soften his words and clearly stated that Britain was facing “the most difficult economic challenge for two decades.”
In their speeches, they both talked about how families in the UK needed to prepare themselves for a tight squeeze on real income. In fact, getting tough on inflation was the main resounding theme of their discourse. Inflation has jumped to 3.3 % in the UK, its highest level since 1992, and is likely to reach 4% in the coming months. The Governor and the Chancellor warned against excessive pay rises, arguing that inflation pay settlements would have disastrous results, leading to years of economic hardship.
The Government may be right to say that everyone has to ‘tighten their belts’, but they certainly will have a hard time dealing with public sector workers in the coming weeks. Union workers are not happy about the prospect of accepting below-inflation pay rises and believe they are the ones who have been hardest hit. Can the Government cope with the prospect of strikes at this time? Some tough decisions will have to be made about whether some concessions are merited.
King and Darling explained that the country had to brace itself for the harsh realities of below-inflation pay rises, more expense mortgages, as well as rising fuel and food prices. Mr. King did not try to soften his words and clearly stated that Britain was facing “the most difficult economic challenge for two decades.”
In their speeches, they both talked about how families in the UK needed to prepare themselves for a tight squeeze on real income. In fact, getting tough on inflation was the main resounding theme of their discourse. Inflation has jumped to 3.3 % in the UK, its highest level since 1992, and is likely to reach 4% in the coming months. The Governor and the Chancellor warned against excessive pay rises, arguing that inflation pay settlements would have disastrous results, leading to years of economic hardship.
The Government may be right to say that everyone has to ‘tighten their belts’, but they certainly will have a hard time dealing with public sector workers in the coming weeks. Union workers are not happy about the prospect of accepting below-inflation pay rises and believe they are the ones who have been hardest hit. Can the Government cope with the prospect of strikes at this time? Some tough decisions will have to be made about whether some concessions are merited.
Wednesday, 11 June 2008
Olympic Promises
Last week, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a Legacy Action Plan: ‘Before, during and after: making the most of the London 2012 Games’. This action plan builds upon the five promises made in June 2007, published in Our Promise for 2012, which sets out the overall framework and main priorities for reaching each legacy objective.
The five promises include: to make the UK a world-leading sporting nation; to transform the heart of East London; to inspire a generation of young people; to make the Olympic Park a blueprint for sustainable living, and finally to demonstrate the UK is a creative, inclusive and welcoming place to live in, visit and for business.
These five ambitions showcase the impressive legacy the London 2012 Olympics can leave behind if the necessary work and planning begins early and if the level of commitment remains constant throughout the preparation stages. The Minister for the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and London, the Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP, reminds us in the foreword to this plan that the Government cannot work alone to ensure that these goals are met. As a result, she calls upon all individuals, communities and regions of the UK to take part in unleashing the great potential that the Olympic Games hold.
Some promises may end up being more challenging to keep than others. Promises are one thing, funding the infrastructure developments for sport are quite another. Having the 2012 Games become a model of sustainable development, for instance, will no doubt prove difficult when budgetary and time issues come into play. Hopefully the environment will not be put on the back burner when crucial construction deadlines start approaching.
If the steps outlined in this action plan are followed though and the various programmes that have been put in place to help realise each goal run smoothly; business, young people, and tourism in the UK, to name but a few, will surely have benefited.
The five promises include: to make the UK a world-leading sporting nation; to transform the heart of East London; to inspire a generation of young people; to make the Olympic Park a blueprint for sustainable living, and finally to demonstrate the UK is a creative, inclusive and welcoming place to live in, visit and for business.
These five ambitions showcase the impressive legacy the London 2012 Olympics can leave behind if the necessary work and planning begins early and if the level of commitment remains constant throughout the preparation stages. The Minister for the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and London, the Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP, reminds us in the foreword to this plan that the Government cannot work alone to ensure that these goals are met. As a result, she calls upon all individuals, communities and regions of the UK to take part in unleashing the great potential that the Olympic Games hold.
Some promises may end up being more challenging to keep than others. Promises are one thing, funding the infrastructure developments for sport are quite another. Having the 2012 Games become a model of sustainable development, for instance, will no doubt prove difficult when budgetary and time issues come into play. Hopefully the environment will not be put on the back burner when crucial construction deadlines start approaching.
If the steps outlined in this action plan are followed though and the various programmes that have been put in place to help realise each goal run smoothly; business, young people, and tourism in the UK, to name but a few, will surely have benefited.
Drowning in the deep end
The Olympics Minister, Tessa Jowell, announced a new £140 million fund to boost sport and fitness through free swimming for over 60s last week as the centrepiece of the Government’s plan to ensure a lasting sporting legacy from the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games.
If achieved, swimming throughout 1500 pools will be freely available to 10 million people. It is interesting to note that Wales already offers such a service for young people and over-65s. One cynical blogger noted, “we are yet to see if the Welsh have now become the fitter nation.”
It is interesting to see how different newspapers responded to what should be seen as a positive story and to try and assess the value of the Government’s announcement.
The Independent describe it as “one of those practical initiatives that pleases because of its simplicity.”
The Times describe it as a policy “drawn up on the back of a cereal box.”
There is a common theme however, though that does runs through most articles: this announcement is from a Government that has allowed building developers to build over school playing fields (having promised to stop this practice) and from a Government responsible for the closure of 10 per cent of swimming pools a year. Other questions raised query the Government’s ability to fund the initiative, and whether swimming pools face becoming over-crowded.
Grand announcements are always easy to broadcast and the Government has been under pressure to show signs of an Olympic legacy post 2012.
What this announcement highlighted is the lack of adequate swimming facilities currently available to people. Large parts of the country have below average swimming facilities available while Manchester, having hosted the Commonwealth Games, boasts top class swimming facilities.
On the surface this does seem like a decent proposal, but one wonders if the Government has dived into the deep end on this having not given it enough thought.
- Greg
If achieved, swimming throughout 1500 pools will be freely available to 10 million people. It is interesting to note that Wales already offers such a service for young people and over-65s. One cynical blogger noted, “we are yet to see if the Welsh have now become the fitter nation.”
It is interesting to see how different newspapers responded to what should be seen as a positive story and to try and assess the value of the Government’s announcement.
The Independent describe it as “one of those practical initiatives that pleases because of its simplicity.”
The Times describe it as a policy “drawn up on the back of a cereal box.”
There is a common theme however, though that does runs through most articles: this announcement is from a Government that has allowed building developers to build over school playing fields (having promised to stop this practice) and from a Government responsible for the closure of 10 per cent of swimming pools a year. Other questions raised query the Government’s ability to fund the initiative, and whether swimming pools face becoming over-crowded.
Grand announcements are always easy to broadcast and the Government has been under pressure to show signs of an Olympic legacy post 2012.
What this announcement highlighted is the lack of adequate swimming facilities currently available to people. Large parts of the country have below average swimming facilities available while Manchester, having hosted the Commonwealth Games, boasts top class swimming facilities.
On the surface this does seem like a decent proposal, but one wonders if the Government has dived into the deep end on this having not given it enough thought.
- Greg
Friday, 6 June 2008
Environmental blues for the aviation industry
Friends of the Earth issued a press release on Tuesday about how two thirds of FTSE 100 and 250 firms in the UK are united in their disapproval of the government’s decision to leave out of the aviation and shipping industries from the carbon emission reduction targets. But the shipping industry seems to have gotten off lightly, as criticism has been primarily focused on aviation.
Environmentalists have been heavily targeting the airline industry recently, accusing them of being one the main culprits of climate change. Who can forget the infamous protest by 5 members of ‘Plane Stupid’ – a network of groups taking action against airport expansion and aviation’s climate impact – who scaled the Houses of Parliament on 27 February, 2008, in order to draw attention to the planned third runway at Heathrow airport?
But is the industry being unfairly targeted? The aviation industry has begun to fight back, and is trying to convince the public that they are indeed making substantial efforts to improve their green credentials. Actual figures reveal that aviation accounts for just 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also, new planes such as the Airbus 380 and the Boeing 787 are said to generate 20% less carbon dioxide than similar planes just a decade ago.
However the industry may now be motivated to switch to more fuel-efficient technology because of higher oil prices, than genuine environmental concerns.
In any case, what is certain is that the aviation industry does not deserve special treatment and must abide to the same carbon reduction targets as everyone else. If the UK’s Climate Change law is to help bring about substantial environmental change, all industries need to be held accountable.
Environmentalists have been heavily targeting the airline industry recently, accusing them of being one the main culprits of climate change. Who can forget the infamous protest by 5 members of ‘Plane Stupid’ – a network of groups taking action against airport expansion and aviation’s climate impact – who scaled the Houses of Parliament on 27 February, 2008, in order to draw attention to the planned third runway at Heathrow airport?
But is the industry being unfairly targeted? The aviation industry has begun to fight back, and is trying to convince the public that they are indeed making substantial efforts to improve their green credentials. Actual figures reveal that aviation accounts for just 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also, new planes such as the Airbus 380 and the Boeing 787 are said to generate 20% less carbon dioxide than similar planes just a decade ago.
However the industry may now be motivated to switch to more fuel-efficient technology because of higher oil prices, than genuine environmental concerns.
In any case, what is certain is that the aviation industry does not deserve special treatment and must abide to the same carbon reduction targets as everyone else. If the UK’s Climate Change law is to help bring about substantial environmental change, all industries need to be held accountable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)