Prince Charles announces funding to protect rainforests

In a Guardian today the importance of Prince Charles in the launch of an emergency funding scheme to save global rainforests has been revealled

Informal Working Group

The plan was agreed by the IWG's 35 governments, following a summit in St James Palace where the intervention of Prince Charles managed to get general commitment to the latest scheme to save the rainforests. The scale of the Princes' success is only understood when one considers the sheer scope of the project to be implimented.

According to the Guardian newspaper story, the IWG has agreed to make $275 millions available in funds to be invested towards rainforest protection. However the project is different in the fact that it seeks to "pay rainforest nations such as Brazil and Indonesia to reduce rates of deforestation and thereby cut carbon emissions".

The best aspect of the scheme is that its entirely workable, and ought to make an real practical difference in the economic attitudes towards rainforests within these developing nations. As the strength in the Princes sponsored program here is that it removes the economic insentive to engage in deforestation.
This is done by linking these massive funds, agreed to be made available by these 35 developed economies, to the trees. Instead of raplacing rainforest with cheap cattle ranching to generate national GDP growth, instead this funding mechanism will increase the economic value in real terms for their economies in simply protecting existing rainforests. It will work in the most practical way possible, through making forests pay.

Immediate commitment

And the scheme has won plaudits from important figures in the fight against climate change and deforestation such as Tony Juniper, a special advisor to the Prince's Rainforest Trust Project and a former director of Friends of the Earth. He called the plan a "break through" and congradulated the role of the Prince in making sure this "first time consensus from among government on creating a mechanism to deal with the underlying causes of deforestation" could happen.

Indeed to the Prince of Wales' great credit, even the recession and depressing oil prices [comparatively to recent years] has not dampened the size or scale of immediate government funding. Norway has already agreed to transfer $250m to the forest nation of Guyana by 2015. It seems that the Prince of Wales has struck another victorious blow for the planetary rainforests, through being politically active he has potentially made an enourmous $22bn project a success, one which can end the real cause for deforestation: economics.

Another fine story revealing the value and worth of the British monarchy in important aspects of our political and environmental culture.

Social Breakdown: new-rights' view

Rising crime, widening gap between richest and poorest 10%, failing educational attainment by working class boys...social breakdown

A broken society?

The Conservatives have made much of the catch phrase "Britain’s broken society", and despite its obvious negativity, the point is surely well made. Britain does face a toxic mixture of societal problems which are now fundamentally undermining our society. Now, as much as the Tory catchphrase risks trivialising these issues; at the very least it does focus minds, force a debate about the influences on young working class boys, who statistically are underperforming vis-a-vis girls in every ethnic group or the beneficial influences of a family unit and the role model of working parents.

Poverty, family breakdown and recession

The UK is now struggling to face up to the worst mixture in recent times which will serve to undermine the stability of British society.

Poverty. In any discussion about social breakdown due prominence must naturally be given to the damaging role of poverty. In this weeks Question time Sir Menzis Campbell entirely correctly pointed out that by the age of just 7 there is an education attainment gap opening up. This gap is directly caused by family wealth and access to opportunity.

The greatest contributing factor to the breakdown of British society has been the dual failure of the Labour government; i] to maintain social mobility and ii] to tackle the gap between richest and poorest 10%. Now to any Thatcherite the gap between the top and bottom earners doesn’t cause much concern, but it does to this One Nation Tory, as the trickle down effect is not as benevolent as neo-liberal economic theory would hold. When we have a society where the poorest 10%, those most vulnerable are ignored and the tax system is not adjusted to accommodate them, through lightening the tax burden then you create the educational gap that we now see. And if we are to tackle Britain social breakdown the first point to start to help working class boys [the worst performing educational group] to understand the fundamental importance of a decent education. That is the first point.

Family breakdown however is a damn important second point, one ignored due to ideological reasons by those on the left of British politics. And like it or lump it, the studies and welcome investigation conducted by Ian Duncan Smith into the role, importance and influence of families on a young Britons life helps paint a picture. It is a fundamental and preeminent truth that alongside poverty the breakdown of the traditional; family unit has hurt rather than helped British society.

Now first, I make no attempt to define the "traditional family" other than say that it consists of a father figure and a mother figure. The dual importance of both paternal and maternal influences over a young person cannot be ignored as it consistently is by those on the left. And before anyone accuses me of gay bashing or anything of the sort, may I remind my readers that I write and hold this view as a bi-sexual man. In this respect I do thoroughly welcome David Cameron’s attempts to reorientate the British benefits system, so that it removes the incentive for poorer families to break apart to receive state aid. Such aid should encourage as much stability, as much consistency in the lives of the most vulnerable in our society and not expose it to fresh pressures.

And thirdly the last great influence on social breakdown worth mentioning here is the recession. As it is worse than in the 1980s [with 6 millions unemployed, if you use the same count used against Thatcher’s government], surely this dynamic has only worsened the state of UK society?

Due to the recession welfare support for those most exposed families will contract, due to the recession the drive to get young people out to work as opposed to loitering on street corners will be hurt, and thanks to Labours recession there is less attention able to be paid to this issue of social breakdown.

In an economy like the UK, one of the worlds leading, even if we are still contracting economically it is surely unbelievable that we find it so difficult to display a positive narrative for our younger generation? If we continue to fail them, and even worse, allow the recession to draw our attention away from needing to focus on social breakdown, the causes and solutions then we commit a grave disservice to the Kingdom.

Other factors

Naturally there are other factors worth mentioning, namely the influence of free movement of people [EU], the rise of illegal immigration from outwit the EU zone, and the collapse in confidence in the UK border control system has also hurt the fight for a more tolerant, accepting and stable society.

Phil Woolas to his own personal credit has implemented some long overdue reforms, like the points system for example. The only problem is that the Tories advocated such a policy in 2005 and Howard was called racist...the nature of the political debate in the UK does not enable a rationale and calm discussion on immigration. This is clearly the fault of the politically correct lobbyists who turn our language into something else, where one word now means something other than the literary dictionary definition. We live in the age of 'politicspeak', and this hurts any attempt to help the British population understand and relate to the positive role immigration has played on UK society.

But let us not ignore the reality that in recent times under Labour immigration has been poorly handled and it has helped create a less stable society. The rise of the BNP, and racism and the horrid phrase "British jobs for British workers" is symbolic that another aspect of social breakdown is the rise of racism and the far right.

We need more than mere tolerance, as the politically correct seek, we need acceptance.

Baroness Ashton & "quiet diplomacy"

The new EU president [of the council of ministers] and foreign policy chief have been named and appointed, and personally I'm rather content

Pride

If ever anyone required proof as to the dominance the UK could potentially play in the ever greater union, this is it. Despite all the paranoia of a "Franco-German" stitch-up, the UK has managed to get one of our own to become the first ever EU foreign policy chief- and this matters.

Why? Well not least because these dual roles, although defined as non-executive, are still largely to be defined, in terms of scope, scale influence and job description in practice by their first occupants. It pleases me then that the UKs, entirely sensible and sober Baroness Ashton should therefore get the chance to define the role of EU foreign policy chief. And from what she has already explained, she seems the perfect choice.

A perfect choice

The estimable baroness has the internal contacts and relationships within the EU; having functioned as EU trade commissioner until now. She has the respect of the entire EU community, indeed her appointment was unanimous, with no resentment [except from the usual europhobic nutters from my own party].

Indeed the baroness is more skilled, most well established and best placed to forward the EU ambitions to communicate our common values to the rest of the world. As a go-to girl she will be perfectly able to articulate EU requirements on the international scene with respect, British calm and sense.

I personally dislike that the EU felt they had to appoint a left-of-centre politician to the EU foriegn policy position, but to be frank the Baroness is hardly left-of centre [how much of a socialist can she be, being new-labourite and a peer!]

Queen Speech: full list of bills

The following is a summary of the legislation announced at the state opening of parliament

• Bribery bill

• Child poverty bill

• Children, schools and families bill

• Cluster munitions (prohibitions) bill

• Constitutional reform and governance bill

• Crime and security bill

• Digital economy bill

• Energy bill

• Equality bill

• Financial services bill

• Fiscal responsibility bill

• Flood and water management bill

• House of Lords reform draft bill

• International development bill

• Personal care at home bill

The Queen Speech

As we approach the final Queen speech of this current parliament, LibDem leader Clegg has now been joined by Tory leader Cameron in criticising the prospective contents of the speech.

"Shamelessly self serving"

While Nick Clegg has called for the Queen speech not to be held for what effectively constitutes the fag end of a dire parliament, he understands damn well that that is constitutionally untenable. But he was making a coherent and relevant point- what will be the point, or more precisely the content, of a Queen speech this close to an election? It is an argument well made by Clegg and the Liberals and now Cameron has taken up this sword and is thrusting it deep into the sides of a lame duck PM.

Cameron in various interviews and a speech has denounced this Queen speech as "most divisive, short-termist, shamelessly self-serving one in living memory", and he is entirely correct; it will be....if Comrade Brown gets his way.

It is an incredible reality which has been commonly pointed out by my regular commenter’s on this blog that the Labour Party will try anything to retain power. This is the evidence [if any was needed to back up such a speculation], where it has been 'leaked' by Labourite insiders that Brown will be using the Queen speech to set the artificial dividing lines for this next General Election, in ways he finds comfortable.

Rules and red ink

It will be the hallmark when we look back on the dead new-labour legacy, the clever [if Machiavellian] electoral strategies deployed over 12 years. Brown himself has always been a great fan and proponent of the new-labour strategy of pilling on plenty red inky dividing lines, all of which are entirely contrived and pre-set by labour electoral requirements.

Thus we shall see, according to nameless and faceless Labourite leaking Tuckers and Campbell’s that this Queen speech will be the final hurrah for the aged tactic of new-labour. Brown it seems will attempt to set "elephant traps" for the Tories and Liberals to fall into, and set the dividing lines Brown would prefer the media class to talk and debate about, not of course the real issues.

And why not try it! Brown knows this tactic of avoiding any real electoral debate on the government record has won them three elections by this point; why deviate now, especially now when the Labour record is such a shambles?

This line of thinking, this logic of shifting the ground of public discussion into more favourable territory has been classic new-labour. This has been done in so many ways, but to me the most memorable method of doing this was Browns' brilliant strategy in 1994-1997 when he successfully turned the public against the debate about cuts, spending and taxation [all labour weak areas 'tax and spend' etc], rather he managed to reduce the debate to one which favoured new-labour, anything other than what was effectively tax and spend was denounced as evil tory cuts...cuts became the bogie word, and remained so until Brown himself had to detoxify the word this year.

The record to be avoided

So I thought it would be helpful to remind everyone of what the PM is trying to avoid having at the centre of the looming General Election clash:

1. 10p tax rate scandal, where the PM made the lives of Britain’s poorest much more difficult so as to pre-empt a Tory tax cutting plan

2. Tripartite regulatory system failing. This is about the total failure of the banking regulatory structure that Brown personally set up when he came to power; this is potentially very embarrassing to the PM personally

3. Gold sales. I reckon Tris and Munguin will definitely have a point to make about this little gem of a New-labour legacy, where Brown sold UK gold reserves off at low market prices

4. Iraq, to many this remains an illegal and unjustifiable war

5. Afganistan, ditto

6. MoD, this is a considerable legacy to be leaving. One of abuse of the trusted bond between soldier and political leader. This number six covers it all, from new-labours chronic underfunding of front line soldiers to the Brown refusal to pay for much needed Helicopter transportation in the field

7. Constitutional failure. This reference the total failure of new-labour to implement the constitutional changes they pledged in 1997, the House of Lords still has hereditaries, the UK parliament still is entirely FPTP, and Devolution remains an unfinished task...

If anyone else wants to add more points to the list feel free to do so in the comments!

Labour candidate calls our Queen "vermin"

In a story which makes my blood boil with strong rage, anger and pure hatred for the worm that is Labourite hack Peter White, he has been caught slating our Queen as "vermin"

The comment at stake

It stands as evidence that Labours is still the party of class warfare, and far leftwing regressive impulses. Labour candidate and general hack Peter White left the following comment on facebook:

"Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a public holiday but lets [sic] have one that means something, rather than celebrating vermin"

Now before I rant, let me say straight- republicanism is a fair enough view to hold. It happens to be one I strongly disagree with, however this...this is vilth. It is a comment which does not promote the idea of republicanism, its merits, nor does it offer any kind of critique at all of the failings of a monarchist system. Instead it is crass, ruthless and rather banal language of which our new-right resident Labourite Peter would be proud.

But he didn't leave is comments at that, he went further:

"What is the point of celebrating the Diamond jubilee of someone who is born into a position of privilege, she is a parasite who milks this country for everythin she can"

HMMMFFF!!!!!!! Let me ask this irritating fool who has spent the better part of her life serving as an a-political head of state, with a high profile, a strong sense of personal morality and individual service? Not Mr White, but HRH Elizabeth II & I, Queen of the United Kingdom, and the commonwealth realms. I would contend that Mr White also considers the statistical facts before accusing the Queen of 'milking' the country; as it is a fact that having the current royalist system is less expensive, more stable and far more unifying for the British body politic than having an elected head of state [or putting it even more straight forward, would you want Elizabeth or Tony 'illegal war' Blair?]

I need to end this blog here, as I am on the verge of ranting about how much of a pathetic little worm this Mr White is, but I shan't lower the quality or the integrity of my new-right blogspot by doing so.

God save the Queen etc etc....

Energy future: SNP blasted

The Institute of Shipbuilding and Engineering (IESIS) has attacked the SNP executive of promoting “meaningless figures … divorced from reality”

Authority over decisions

A main feature of the IESIS assault on the SNP executive in the Sunday Herald was the demand that in future all decision-making concerning energy security be divorced from political control. Naturally it is prudent to highlight that this is perhaps a reference to the IESIS opposition to the SNP non-nuclear strategy. According to Professor Ian Macleod, the current Scottish executive opposition to nuclear energy sources is based on "political rivalries" and general politiking. Although Professor Macleod is perhaps beinjg slightly unfair on the Salmond administration, the IESIS position on the decision making on energy security is a reasonable one.

Independent, expert strategic planning on Scottish energy supply in future, the complete removal of politicians from the decision making process on matters of energy production and security. It as I said seems and is reasonable to subscribe to; however I have major reservations with the IESIS view.

For one thing, the politicians; despite the crude machiavellian behaviour; are democratically accountable for their actions. They represent the people, and are directly democratically subject to them- the well respected experts in the IESIS sadly do not enjoy such distinction. But being this as it may, Macleod and the IESIS does raise important points on the integrity of SNP statistics which form the backbone of their own energy plan.

"Lies, damn lies and statistics"

The much used and abused Disraelian remark has never been more true than the current era of Campbellian and New-Labourite spin and spivishness. And the IESIS has launched a not-even-veiled bombardment on the SNP executive in Holyrood. Macleod says that their stats are "meaningless figures … divorced from reality". Strong, controvercial stuff there Professor, and what is the basis for this surely outlandish claim?

Well he begins the bombardment by attacking the practicalities and feasability of the Salmond plan to see Scotland producing 50% from renewable and 50% from carbon capture coal;

"The Scottish Government’s electricity generation policy of 50% from renewable sources and 50% from coal with carbon capture and storage by 2020 neglects the major issue of technical feasibility. It is very unlikely that achieving even 25% of the operational capacity from renewable resources by 2020 will be feasible,”

It is worth mentioning that Macleod is correct about the SNP figures neglecting the feasibility of such plans, as the energy production figures apparently fail to account for energy loss during transportation to cities and consumers. This is a really big miscalculation, as these windfarms, tidal generators will potentially be placed in rather remote locations, where energy transportation and distribution will expose the energy output to substantial downside losses, it is a mystery why the SNP executive should have failed to calculate this rather important factor into their estimates about overall operational capacity. So it is important not to reject as outlandish or nonsensical all of the IESIS and Professor Macleouds' complains; in some regards there is merit in questioning official SNP figuures as they currently stand.

Macleod however moves on, expanding the remit of his bombardment on SNP energy policy by dismissing the longstanding SNP position that Scotland enjoys "60GW of renewable energy". Macleoud explains that "60GW is a meaningless figure", he expresses real distress at the failure to understand the need to consider technical feasability [yes that again]:

“To say that we have 60GW of available renewable energy is meaningless because it doesn’t take account of the technical feasibility of delivering it as electricity and using it as electricity. This is what we mean about Scottish Government projections being completely divorced from reality.”

It seems that the unability to grasp technical feasability is a concurring theme in the critique of the SNP administration, but in its defence their figure of 60GW of energy potential is founded on a very reliable 2001 report conducted by Scottish Executive by consultants Garrad Hassan and Partners Limited. The only problem with that defence is the figures are increasingly out of date, 2001- the figures are getting elderly to say the least.

Political realities?

If the criticisms of the very respectable IESIS and Professor Macleoud are taken into account, it doesn;t make any difference anyway; true or false. Irrelevent not least because if the 50% renewables target is unachievable, and 25% is overly ambitious; then the only remaining course of action is the ever-controvercial neuclear power prodiction option. Does anyone seriously think by this point the SNP and especially Salmond is able to U-turn politically and adopt new neuclear? Of course not, it is entirely impractical, and the SNP might have painted themselves into a rather risky corner on energy policy on this basis if the IESIS criticisms prove true...but what was it Keynes said? "in the longrun we are all dead", so what's the political risk to the SNP for not acting if Macleod is right?

Such thoughts are clearly rather pathetic, not least because energy security could become and issue by 2050 if the recent oil and gas production capacity figures concerning the north sea output are to be believed. But as with most aspects of modern life, it seems our political culture is the major problem. It shuts down the ability of politicians to change their minds when presented with fresh evidence under risk of being accused of "weakness"...our politicians are compelled by the climate of Scottish politics to play the relentless [and harmful] game of tribalist one-up-manship, and not only is uncondusive to a sensible debate on energy policy and security but it undermines devolutionary politics itself which supposidly rests on minority government and mutual cooperation for the general good...[that sounds like Rouseau!]