Electoral reform?

Gordon the Gopher announces his plans for electoral reform. Interesting proposals, even more interesting timing. Back in the Tony Baloney days, in the run up to the 1997 General Election, much was promised on electoral reform but little has been delivered other than some tinkering round the edges: Partial reform of the House of Lords, but some hereditary peers remain, and none of the peers in the upper house are elected, all are appointed, so the current system is arguably just as bad as the previous. We've had a degree of proportional representation with European, London Assembly and the devolved national assemblies. But not where there is real power, Westminster, County and Borough Elections remain as first past the post.

So why does it take 13 years after a 1997 New Labour Manifesto promise to get some real proposals laid before the House of Commons? Simple, because now it has no chance of getting on the statute books. The proposal that Gordon is laying down is simply to hold a referendum on his ideas after the next General Election. As he is not going to win this, the chances of him following up on this are nil. We know Cam's Shams are opposed to electoral reform, so we may as well stop this discussion now, it ain't gonna happen!

What's really sad is that Gordon's ideas are really positive. I've long held the view that the current system is far from democratic, as no party in my living memory has polled much more than 40% of the popular vote, but have often had strong majorities. More people vote against the winning party than for it, so it's on a loser before you start. The "alternative voting" system is much more likely to yield results that better reflect public opinion. The failing in this system though is the constituency boundaries which will still yield safe seats for all 3 main parties regardless of the popular vote, but MP's all support the constituency system so this isn't going to change. However, that aside, the real shame is that this proposal will be long forgotten by the time of the 2014/15 elections.

RIP Cadbury's you will be missed

The Cadbury board played a game of hard ball to get the best price for the company. Understandable. But the $11 billion takeover by Kraft will leave the new owners heavily in debt. So in order to make this substantial investment pay, Kraft will have no choice but to move production to where it is cheapest. Cadbury themselves were already planning production to Poland, so the Kraft acquisition will accelerate the departure of this once typical British brand from our shores.

On top of this tragedy, Kraft will also have to look to cheaper ingredients, and may even change recipes to save money. It's highly likely they will drop some of the less well performing brands too. So this really does signal the end of an era for chocolate.

Incidentally, Gordon the Gopher was making empty promises about safeguarding jobs. How can he? He's not on the board of Kraft, so there's absolutely nothing he can do. Further proof, if proof were needed that you can't trust a thing he says.

Read the BBC's story here.

The Government procrastinates again

A mix of good and bad news from Gordon the Gopher's left hand man. The story below should be good news. On the surface of it, Mr Burnham has stated that Hospital Car Parking charges should end. This is a cause to celebrate. The flip side of this is that behind the headline grabbing story, nothing has changed now. The consultation that he's proposing will not be over until after, or at, the time of the next election, so any legislation that would follow, is actually doubtful given a potential change in government. The cynic in me says that this is a last throw of the dice to garner some pre-election support.

The reality is, that if the true desire was there, certain charges could be abolished very quickly, and further measures could be taken later, if deemed necessary. Oncology patients, in-patients, paediatric patients, seem easy groups to decide on to waive any charges. But as any patient or carer will tell you, there are other costs that need to be considered too. But I guess this would be a start. So far the Government is all talk, and no action. A little similar to my last entry on 084 telephone numbers where much is promised, but not yet delivered.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8433395.stm

The Power of the Internet!

Proof that Internet campaigning can work. Hot on the heels of Rage Against The Machine's success in preventing the Cowell combine harvester from reaping yet another Christmas number one, I bring you a more practical application of Internet power.

Those who know me will know that I've got a bee in my bonnet about non-geographic telephone numbers, and have been banging on about it for yonks. So I bring you, fresh from my in-box, a communication from Gordon the Gopher himself detailing the government's plans to outlaw these.

I draw your attention to: http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page21836

So when you next go to your GP Surgery, ask the Practice Manager about their telephone number and point out this link, then stand back and enjoy the look on this face. Happy New Year!

The Copenhagen Environment Summit

What a missed opportunity. Not because there was no legally binding agreement but because the focus is on the wrong issues. However, I will start this entry with a cheap, but none-the-less valid point. Whilst we are all being told to reduce our carbon output, what on earth was the carbon footprint of flying hundreds of politicians and their entourages to Denmark? Has no-one heard of video-conferencing? I think our elder statemen need to lead by example.

A study of the Earth's geological history tells us that temperature fluctuations are nothing new. Even the pace of temperature change does have parallels too. History also shows us that methane, not carbon, is the really dangerous greenhouse gas. Extinction Level Events that have been triggered by meteor impacts or volcanic erruptions have released methane into the atmosphere, raising the temperature quickly.

More recent studies also show that the effects of pollution on the atmosphere are reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. So conversely this is mitigating the effects of global warming. Not that I am suggesting we continue to pollute of course.

There are massive amounts of methane in the sea. A small shift in temperature would see some of this methane released into the atmosphere, with disasterous consequences.

We need to focus on controlling both methane and carbon dioxide. The biggest source of land based methane is cattle. So here we need to think about developing cattle feed that reduces methane. We need to think about reducing our meat consumption. A practical way to do this is to think about population control. It's controversial but necessary. There are only a finite amount of resources to go round. Population growth is out of control.

We have a natural way of dealing with carbon dioxide, trees. We must stop the deforrestation of the planet, and locally, our urban sprawl.

This is where I believe the politicians should have been concentrating. But this is too big an issue for national governments, we need a global supra-national organisation to manage and monitor our planet, before it's too late. Climate change is inevitable, how we deal with it, is not.

Debunking the myths of Carbon Footprints, Carbon Offsetting and Green Energy Tariffs

Carbon Footprints, Carbon Offsetting and Green Energy Tariffs are all terms that have been hijacked by commercial organisations to lure us into buying their products as they are ‘greener’ that anyone else’s. Here’s why we should all question the rash claims made.

Carbon Footprints: We know that this is a metaphorical representation of how much carbon we use. But the truth of the matter is that there is no way of truly measuring how much carbon we use, as all have unique lives that will use all manner of carbon-based energy that we have no control the original source of the energy. Without this control, we have no way of knowing how the energy was extracted, whether it was extracted efficiently, and therefore its carbon content. Most homes have gas and electricity, and run at least one car. Every time you fill up at a different fuel station you are changing the ‘source’. Every time you shop at a different shop, eat at a different restaurant, or drink in a different pub, you will be directly or indirectly consuming differing sources of energy. So let’s assume that you can track all the different providers that you come into contact with. How would you calculate the carbon content of the fuel expended? You may say that this doesn’t matter because Carbon Footprint is only designed to give you an indication of the relative use of energy. Fair point, except that where we’re being encouraged to offset Carbon, how can you truly do this if you don’t truly know how much Carbon you’re using?

Carbon Offsetting: Let’s assume that we can measure the amount of Carbon used. Should you offset? Well, yes of course it helps, but there are two issues. Offsetting doesn’t not discourage waste, or encourage efficiency; it simply salves your conscience. Also if everyone were to offset there wouldn’t be anywhere to put all the trees, and as it doesn’t encourage energy preservation, the planet will still run out of oil millions of years before any trees planted will yield some fresh supplies. Many companies make claims to be Carbon Neutral to impress us into thinking they are green, and good to do business with. I would say that this would be very, very, difficult to prove, so it’s a hollow claim.

Green Energy Tariffs
Many power companies are offering ‘green energy’. Usually at a premium. This may give you the impression that your energy is coming from renewable sources but the reality is that your power will be coming from the same old carbon powered station that it always has, you’ll just be paying more for it! You could argue that this doesn’t matter because the extra money that we are paying is being invested in renewables. But the reality is that it means that we are paying for the research and development budgets of already rich companies that should be funding and securing their own futures from the billions of pounds of profit that they already make.

The only way to reduce our carbon footprints is to use less energy and be more energy efficient. Period. Don't believe the hype.

Team Green: The green test

Politicians will make claims as to their green credentials. Sadly there claims don't hold up to much scrutiny. Here's some food for thought. Cooking oil, after use can be filtered and cleaned up then used in diesel vehicles. We have a large number of restaurants and food outlets that throw away their oil, which is also problematic to cleanly dispose of. For a commercial organisation to arrange to collect, process and then sell this onto us is unviable because Mr Darling insists on the same level of fuel duty that applies to petroleum based diesel. By reducing the tax burden we can recycle an otherwise spent product, preserve oil, and help motorists. But think of the bigger picture; if the government were to organise collection and distribution it could create jobs and if the fuel were used to power public service vehicles the savings could lower our council tax bills. Not much effort but plenty of benefits. So why doesn't it happen? Politicians live in the pockets of the oil barons, and depend too much on the tax revenues oil brings. So if a politician claims to be green, the only I suppose they are... well Greenbacks anyhow.