Expenses roundup

I had promised in my blog that I would publish my spending on the election campaign - so here it is. This expenditure relates to what the Electoral Commission describes as the "short campaign" - i.e. roughly from when the election was called.

Spending limit for the period £10,745.40 (based on an electorate in York Central of 74,908)

Actual spending of £4163.40

Of which:
£3273.90 - Election materials (leaflets and design costs)
£889.50 - Office running costs (the period given was actually rather longer than the campaign). Most of the office costs (such as rent) would have been incurred even if the election had not taken place.

A total of £1,230 was received in donations in the course of the campaign, including a donation of £1,000 from one individual. All of the six donors were members of York Green Party, and all are local residents. None, as far as I'm aware, are non-doms, tax exiles or eccentric millionaires.

An end to the blockade?

It's very saddening that it has taken the death of 9 pro-Palestinian activists to focus international attention on the shameful Israeli blockade on Gaza. The blockade, which in fact has been going on for 10 years but was greatly tightened from June 2007, when the Hamas political group took control of the territory. The BBC has an excellent web page describing the effects of the blockade here. The justification from the Israelis is the continuing sporadic rocket attacks on Israeli territory - well, with 40% unemployment, most people living at subsistence level and many of Gaza's industries ravaged in last year's military action by Israel, it is hardly surprising that militants can gain some traction here.

We still cannot be entirely sure how or why exactly the 9 unarmed activists were killed, when Israeli troops stormed the Turkish vessel heading for Gaza. It appears the other five boats in the flotilla were seized without loss of life. However, it isn't clear why the Israelis had any right to impede the vessels at all, since they were heading for port in Gaza, which is part of Palestine, a separate country recognized by international law, but which the Israelis have been occupying since 1967. In addition to that, the vessels were reportedly in international waters when they were forcibly boarded.

Around 500 activists have been arrested, most of whom have disobligingly refused to sign a document demanded by the Israelis, allowing them to be deported as soon as possible. The remainder are incarcerated in Israeli jails, awaiting trial, though what "crimes" they are to be charged with is not entirely clear.

Unfortunately it appears that, even in the face of international outrage, the United States is determined to continue protecting Israel. The latest suggestion from them - incredible as it may seem - is that the Israelis should investigate the whole incident themselves. It's depressing for those of us who hoped for some genuine backbone from the Obama administration. As long as Israel is granted a carte blanche to do what it likes in Palestine, peace in the Middle East remains a dim and distant prospect.

I gathered that there was a demonstration in York today which I heard about too late and was unable to join - however if there are further protests at the weekend I will definitely be involved.

Taking the plunge....

I've just watched Gordon Brown's valedictory speech live on the television and then Cameron's response as he entered Downing Street - both of which I have to say were generous, statesmanlike and dignified. The same could certainly not be said of John Prescott, who seemed to have been collared for some comments by Channel 4 News just as Brown was on his way to see the Queen. In fact, within five minutes of Brown leaving Downing Street, Prezza already seemed to have started the next General Election campaign. He was rehearsing the rhetoric about the "Liberals being the same as the Tories," which no doubt will become drearily familiar over the next couple of years and seemed to be more interested in Labour's preparations for making trouble in opposition than what form the government of our country might take.

In the past few days, many column inches have been devoted to the possibility of a so-called "progressive coalition," to keep David Cameron out of No.10. Without commenting on the desirability of such an arrangement, it seems to me that it was never viable, not least because a Lib-Lab arrangement would be unable to command a majority in the Commons.

In addition to that, there's the "progressive" bit. Many, many moons ago I was a member of the Labour Party and I have to say that only someone who had never been a member could possibly think that everyone in the Labour Party is "progressive." Many are, of course, but others are as conservative with a small "c" on issues of political reform as the most right-wing Tories - one only needs to look at the government's "achievements" during the last 13 years to see that.

In addition, the support or at least acquiescence of the nationalist parties would be needed. I can't remember who it was that said that the unionists were the undertakers of any government, but if that's so then the nationalists surely must be sharks - their support can be bought at a price, but they would certainly move in for the kill as and when it suited them. The concessions they would have extracted would surely have made any such coalition deeply unpopular with English voters. I was particularly amused to see that the SNP claimed to be terribly concerned about preventing the Tories from taking power. The reality is that they must be rubbing their hands at the prospect of a Conservative PM in Downing Street, which could pave the way for a successful referendum on independence. Cameron is surely well aware that he will have to tread carefully north of the border.

The negotiations between the Tories and Lib Dems were undoubtedly conducted in a serious spirit; those between Labour and the Lib Dems, conversely, had an air of political theatre about them. In the first place, many Labour backbenchers and even cabinet ministers were opposed from the outset to the "coalition of the losers" which, probably correctly, they considered to be an electoral suicide pact. It may be that the appearance of serious talks served a purpose for both parties: for Labour, they can claim that the Lib Dems rejected a "better deal" than the Tories offered them, on the basis of their deathbed conversion to the importance of proportional representation, not expanding Heathrow airport and so on. On the other hand, the Lib Dems will be trying to demonstrate that a coalition deal with Labour was never viable, in an attempt to pacify their radical leftie supporters who will be horrified about a deal with the Tories. Anyway, the recriminations had already started on Newsnight with Ben Bradshaw spinning the "party line" that the evil Lib Dems were determined to lever Cameron into No.10 no matter what. More entertainingly still, Labour are apparently now the new "radical" party and plan to "reconnect with their voters." Well at least they have finally managed to admit that they are completely out of touch.

Nick Clegg may be left with the feeling that he was not so much the kingmaker as the pawn in this particular chess game. In the end, he was left with a choice between a deal with the Tories or nothing: and of course nothing would mean a Tory minority government, constitutional crisis and another election within 6-12 months in which the Lib Dems would likely be hammered from both sides - not least because the two main parties are far better funded. I don't know whether Vince Cable had read my last blog posting, but he apparently intervened at a meeting of Lib Dems yesterday to describe a Tory deal as the "least worst option."

Perhaps the most intriguing figure in this whole episode is David Cameron. For him, forming a minority government with another election to follow would have been a viable alternative, as he was urged to do by some of the right-wingers in his own party; yet instead, he chose to enter a coalition with the Lib Dems. It seems there is some genuine personal rapport between the two party leaders which may at least in part explain the success of the negotiations that have established Britain's first coalition government since the war. But what were Cameron's real reasons for doing the deal?

Well, of course there may be an element of political calculation - after all, the Lib Dems are the natural home for disgruntled Tories, so the political fallout from any difficult decisions in the coming months may be limited by having them as part of the government. He may even see the arrangement as a way of moderating the influence of certain backbenchers and ditching awkward policies like the ludicrous pledge to increase the inheritance tax threshhold to £1,000,000. Maybe it was Cameron's response to the "Scottish problem," to try and get more Scottish MPs in the governing coalition; or perhaps it is that rarest of all pearls in politics: genuine statesmanship. We may never know - or at least we may have to wait ten years for the memoirs to come out. What we will discover over the coming months and years is the level of commitment of both parties to the coalition - and whether the Tories are really prepared to deliver even the very limited reform they have promised; I hope they are.

As I mentioned before, the process of entering government will force the Lib Dems to define much more clearly what they stand for. I'm disappointed at the election of a Tory-led administration, though it cannot be disputed that the two parties together did command the support of a majority of the electorate. Obviously it would be hypocritical to accuse the Lib Dems of "betrayal", since they never had my support in the first place - the possibility of them supporting the Tories into No.10 being one of the reasons for that. I also formed the view quite a long while ago that if we wanted more Green MPs we would have to fight to get them under something like the existing system - an opinion that has been entirely vindicated by recent events; those people who voted "tactically" for the Lib Dems at the last election, please take note.

However, now is not the time for churlishness. Like it or loathe it, the arrangement between the Tories and Lib Dems is historic, with Nick Clegg taking over as deputy prime minister - meaning that he could actually be answering Prime Minister's Questions on occasion in the Commons. And I will say one thing in is favour - whatever he achieves in the post, he surely cannot fail to make a better fist of it than John Prescott!

Clegg's difficult decision

Well, the dust has settled a bit now over the election, and I would of course like to start by thanking the 1,669 people who voted Green in York Central, along with my fantastic campaign team who helped to deliver something in the region of 70,000 leaflets in the past 4 weeks or so. The other thing is the excellent news that Caroline Lucas finally made the breakthrough for us at parliamentary level - I predict that she will begin to make a mark immediately. But of course the great talking point at the moment is Nick Clegg's position and whether he will support a Conservative-led government in a hung parliament.

Broadly speaking, he has four options:

(i) A formal coalition with the Conservatives
(ii) Some other kind of agreement (such as "confidence and supply") with the Tories
(iii) A deal (probably a formal coalition) with Labour
(iv) Don't do a deal with either party, whilst agreeing to work together on "issues".

Let's firstly look at a deal with Labour. Whilst in policy terms there is probably more natural common ground here, there are several significant and probably fatal drawbacks. The first is the simple practical one that the Lib Dems and Labour don't have enough seats for an overall majority even if they combine their forces; this means they would need to depend on the support or at least acquiescence of the smaller parties such as the SNP or Plaid Cymru which could make it difficult to drive through tough decisions. In addition, the Lib Dems would be seen as propping up a government rejected by the electorate, so there would be limited goodwill from the public, and the unpopularity of the government could pave the way for a future Tory landslide - especially if they lost seats by gradual attrition from by-elections, which could limit the future life-expectancy of the government. Labour have offered electoral reform, but that looks like alternative vote, a limited change which falls far short of the proportional system favoured by the Lib Dems.

A deal with the Conservatives is prima facie a more attractive option, much as some Lib Dem activists might squirm at the prospect. Cameron is the leader of the largest party, so can reasonably claim (as Clegg has indicated) a moral right to have the "first go" at forming a government. Because both parties in the coalition did not form part of the last government, there might be at least some degree of goodwill from voters, which would be lacking for a Brown-led administration. There might be a willingness from the Tories to offer genuine policy concessions and cabinet posts - and surely if the Lib Dems never want to take power then what is the point?

However, the most serious problem is that the Tories will almost certainly never offer any real movement on the Lib Dems' most totemic policy - proportional representation. Cameron has made plenty of warm statements about the Lib Dems in the past few days, and will do everything possible to attract Clegg - but also to make him look unreasonable if he refuses to make a deal. A sort of "confidence and supply" arrangement, which falls short of a coalition, could have many of the disadvantages of still being seen to support the Tories - unpopular with some Lib Dem supporters and activists - but would deprive the Lib Dems of the advantages, such as cabinet posts and genuine influence over policy. As one of the newspapers put it earlier, if you're going to sell your soul, do it properly.

Now there is a point here. In the last week of the campaign, the Lib Dems in York distributed a leaflet telling Green supporters to vote tactically for the Lib Dems, as we would then get PR and Green MPs at the next election, reform of the political system, every day would be the first day of spring &c &c. In my view, this was a disingenuous promise as it was always going to be difficult for the Lib Dems to deliver PR, unless one of the main parties was really willing to make a serious concession. This relates to the next point I'm about to make.

The final option, of course, is for the Lib Dems to stand back and avoid supporting any party because there's insufficient common ground - an option which of course carries the risk of looking impotent. The most likely consequence of this would be a Cameron minority government which would soldier on for a few months at least. The problem, however, is that the Lib Dems' negotiating position is much weaker than it would be in say, a continental European country with a genuinely proportional electoral system. In those countries, the equivalent of the Prime Minister wouldn't necessarily have the right to call an election any time they wanted, and even if they did it's unlikely any party would get more than 50% of the vote, so basically a coalition is going to happen anyway and they might as well get on with it. Under the British system, the PM could call a fresh election in 6, 12 or 18 months if the other parties blocked government legislation - and just a smallish swing of the vote could result in an overall majority. The other point is that the smaller parties - and that includes the Lib Dems - have much more limited financial resources than the big two, so several general elections in quick succession could rapidly empty their coffers. So if there were a Conservative minority government, Cameron can almost challenge the other parties to pull him down, with the threat of another election if they do.

Clegg may in the end decide that the least worst option is some kind of deal with the Tories. The Lib Dem activists who are at this moment gathering with placards urging him that PR must be a precondition for any deal may have to recognize that he just may not have enough clout to deliver it whatever he does. This does, however, point up a wider issue about the Lib Dems. They have built their support both on traditional centre-party voters - those who don't like the Tories but are also uncomfortable with Labour - and yet at the same time have also appealed to those to the left of Labour - those concerned about things like the replacement of Trident. In electoral terms, one of their strengths has been their ability to be all things to all people - but this is a balancing act that will be increasingly difficult with the responsibility of of power in a hung parliament.

One of the great ironies of the Liberals and then Liberal Democrats over the past 100 years is that for most of that time, their raison d'etre has been to be kingmakers in a hung parliament - yet the moment they use that power, they end up alienating half their supporters. As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for - you might just end up getting it.

The internet election

Sorry I haven't posted over the last week or so - I've been occupied most evenings with hustings and the rest of the time with leafletting, canvassing - and responding to e-mails.

On the last point, there's no doubt that the internet is making a big impact on election campaigning; I don't say transforming because as yet there certainly isn't any way I'll be able to conduct the whole thing from my armchair - which is probably a good thing for those of us looking to lose a bit of excess weight in the run-up to May 6th. But it is certainly having an impact.

Perhaps the most immediate example of this is the number of e-mails I've received, asking my views and to pledge support on various things - which I've been plugging my way through with the help of some volunteers in the office. I must have had several hundred of these.

However, the internet is also helping to keep us all honest in a few other ways - for example this website on which people scan and upload any election leaflets they may have received - so you can check whether a party is saying one thing in one place or to one set of people and something different elsewhere. I expect this to become rather interesting as the usual last-minute skulduggery kicks in - the hastily risographed attack leaflets delivered as late as possible in the hope that the other lot (whoever they are) won't be able to respond.

One interesting point I discovered concerns the Lib Dems in York. The LD candidate for York Central, Christian Vassie, lives in the York Outer constituency, a couple of miles outside the boundary. As far as I'm concerned, this is a total non-issue as I don't think it affects his ability to represent the constituency. Yet one of the York Outer Lib Dem leaflets criticises the Tory candidate there, Julian Study - because he lives in Tockwith, a short way outside the York Outer boundary. I'm happy to give Christian the benefit on this one as I suspect it's unlikely he was consulted, but an interesting point of debate nonetheless.

Anyway, I'll try and get something else up before the election - I'm now staggering into the closing straight!

The Great Debates

As the week has been so hectic, I'm afraid it's been a while since I last had the chance to update the blog.

Well, it all started with the first of the great debates. OK, I'm going to give Nick Clegg a bit of credit - after all, he did manage to go, within the space of a week, from being someone most people wouldn't recognize if they bumped into him to being the most popular party leader since Winston Churchill. So I do agree with Nick about one thing at least - you have a choice in this election other than Labour or the Conservatives.

We have quickly seen the well worn arguments of the "Vote Clegg, get Brown," variety. The point, of course, is that Labour and the Tories have a symbiotic love-hate relationship. They must make a great show of hating each other, for of course their raison d'etre is to keep the other out. In fact, of course, both are entirely happy with a system that allows them to make a "it's one or the other" argument, and any other vote is a "wasted vote." If you don't vote for one of the big two, you don't count and neither do your views. With all this, it's hardly surprising that around a third of the electorate didn't bother to vote at all in 2005. But it's not just about the big three either; we need to tell people that their vote counts whoever they choose.

What has been particularly amusing is seeing the reaction of the tabloid newspapers to the scandalous notion that the British public should have the right to decide the outcome of the election instead of them. I think that Nick has so far been accused of just about everything short of satanic ritual abuse, although that too may soon be coming.

And so to the other great debate. Well, I'm not talking about the second debate last night, which I didn't see (as I don't have Sky) and which the BBC spent about 20 minutes dissecting ad nauseam on the news. We had the first campaign hustings, courtesy of the York Older People's Forum, at the Friends' Meeting House on Monday, at which I think all the candidates acquitted themselves well; this includes Paul Abbott of UKIP who popped along and spoke several times from the audience. I think there are a number of issues that might crop up again in later hustings, but more of that later.

Justice for the Jarvis workers

Yesterday, I attended the march in York in support of the Jarvis workers who have been made redundant. The march itself was just like the good old days - megaphones, banners and copies of the Socialist Worker on sale; in fact, it's a shame there weren't a few chants of "Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, Out! Out! Out!" for old times' sake. I ended up with a good friend of mine holding the other end of his banner. But the purpose was certainly deadly serious.

The fiasco leading up to the sacking of the workers is testament to the dysfunctionality of the privatized rail system. Network Rail slashed its track renewal programme by 30% last year, leaving Jarvis in a vulnerable position and the firm finally collapsed in March. Meanwhile, engineering work has been contracted out to other firms employing agency staff. The workers have asked for a TUPE arrangement, which means that they would be taken on by the other companies doing the work under existing terms and conditions. Because this hasn't been applied already, the taxpayer could end up footing the bill for redundancy pay, while skilled employees are thrown out of work. This is entirely typical of the rail industry - public subsidy goes in at one end and private profit comes out at the other, a fact that seems to be lost on some people in other political parties.

However, as of earlier this week, Yorkshire minister Rosie Winterton was still insisting that Network Rail was a private company and that she couldn't intervene. Hugh Bayley, who didn't come to the march (though some of his Labour colleagues on the city council did) has pledged "100% support" for the workers, though it's not clear exactly what will happen in practice as a result of his representations.

It was interesting that a local PC who was policing the march came up to me and said how shocking she thought the treatment of the Jarvis workers was. Of course we need TUPE and decency for Jarvis staff - but we also need to end the shambles of a fractured rail system in which the different entities look after their own interests instead of those of the travelling public.

The Greens are the only party at this election calling for the railways to be brought back into public ownership.

It's hide behind the sofa time...

...and keep your household pets safely away from the television - yours truly has just completed an interview for Look North.

Danni Hewson from the BBC was interviewing three Green candidates about issues that concerned them: Dilys Cluer from Scarborough discussed pensions and older people, Jillian Creasy from Sheffield talked about health (she is a part time GP), and I discussed transport and the economy. We did the interview on the city walls next to the headquarters of Jarvis Rail, who have been hit hard by Network Rail's decision to cut back on track maintenance contracts.

Well, I did manage to fluff one question although Danni was extremely pleasant about it. I wonder whether they could do something like the "comedy of errors" as they used to at the end of the Dick Emery show - where they show all the mistakes that everyone has made, just for a laugh.

A couple of points I did want to get across - a personal passion of mine is that we need to invest in science and innovation. Of course this is partly to do with tackling climate change, but it's also about taking a pride in again being a country where people make and produce things, instead of having everything we used every day made by people on the other side of the world earning 5p an hour.

The other thing is that I don't shy away from saying that we need a more equal distribution of wealth and the taxation system ought to be designed to achieve that. All available evidence shows that almost every social indicator improves - there is less crime, better health, better mental health, people feel happier and more secure... and in fact things are better even for rich people.

Anyway, if I can find out the date of the broadcast it will no doubt be good for a few chuckles.

No to Trident replacement!

I've received a number of e-mails from people asking my view about the proposed replacement for the ageing Trident nuclear weapons system. In fact, this is a topic I've mentioned in my first election leaflet - although the correspondence suggests that the price tag is now £97 billion instead of the £75 billion I had last heard - but there's inflation for you I suppose!

Keeping the budget deficit in check after the disastrous bank bailout will require some tough choices on tax increases and public spending; however, surely one not-so-tough option is to decide not to replace a weapons system that protects us from nothing and no-one. I'm reliably assured that there is no current evidence of plans by any neighbouring country to invade the United Kingdom, so surely in the longer term investing in health, education, infrastructure and science will be of far greater benefit to us. Just to add to that, I believe we should also avoid unnecessary wars of choice, such as that in Iraq, which put military personnel in danger - and surely if we are going to be involved in conflicts, our troops should have the best possible protective equipment. I'm not sure how Trident protects us from roadside bombs planted by terrorists.

The letter also makes the perfectly valid point that, with Obama now seriously talking about cuts in the number of weapons, other countries need to be willing to follow suit to rid the world of as many nuclear bombs as possible. If we are serious about stopping nuclear proliferation elsewhere, we ought to stop proliferating ourselves!

It's also the official policy of the Green Party not to replace Trident, and I'm delighted to offer my full support to that.

Jam today and jam tomorrow

Firstly, I should say that I got a comment on the previous post about whether or not York Central is a marginal seat, and I've posted a response there. No doubt this is a topic that will crop up again.


On Saturday morning, I attended a Friends of the Earth action at Lendal Bridge, which involved handing out jam sandwiches and tarts to passers-by. The objective of this exercise - apart from attracting some slightly puzzled looks - was to highlight the fact that the council's current consultation on traffic levels does not include any option that involves reducing traffic - the only choice is on the level of increase we want to support.

This is coupled with recent data that have shown a sharp deterioration in air quality around the city centre - some particular hot spots are at the Bootham/ Gillygate junction, and at Holgate Road. There are now numerous sites where the EU limit of 40 micrograms/cubic metre for NO2 are being exceeded.

This should occasion some though about how we manage the city's traffic. It's clear from my own observations (I live next to the inner ring road) that the kind of problems that used to exist at peak times are now spreading through the day as roads clog up. This is without all the additional development that York is expected to sustain over the forthcoming years - an extra 1,000 houses or so a year, along with employment opportunities. It's clear there are two options - to simply manage an increasingly dysfunctional transport system, with jams in the centre getting ever worse, or to look at radical options, combining better public transport with measures - which could include congestion charging - to actually limit the amount of traffic that can drive into the city centre.

I make no apologies for favouring the latter of these alternatives. Where the other parties stand is an issue that will no doubt be addressed in the campaign.

The responsibility gap

I met a personal friend of mine this week who has been experiencing horrendous neighbour nuisance. He lives in a terraced house in the city next door to someone with a record of drug abuse and mental health problems who has also been dealing in drugs from his home. What is salutary about this story is that none of the agencies who should have been dealing with the situation - social services, health agencies, the police and the property owner - have been able to prevent it dragging on for years.

I'm certainly not advocating a return to the days when people were incarcerated for years because of teenage angst. However, because of the pressure to reduce the number of beds, the modern health service seems to have adopted the same sort of model as is now used for operations - the patient is whisked in, treated, and then is out of the hospital again before their feet have a chance to touch the ground. Now this may work for ingrown toenails, but for mental health issues it simply doesn't. Drugs are not always the appropriate solution and attempting to diagnose and treat too quickly can exacerbate things.

Perhaps even more of a problem is that the lack of mental health beds resulting from this policy means that people more or less have to sit in a queue waiting for treatment - just the same as for an eye operation. However, whilst they await a place in hospital, those people around them - friends, neighbours and family - have to try and manage desperately difficult situations. In the same way, the police have been aware of the drug dealing from the property, but the drug dealing has continued.

It is also an interesting case study into the problems caused by buy-to-let landlords. The landlady, who lives in the south of England, is an elusive character who seems to change her telephone number regularly and makes a point of being as difficult to contact as possible - so much so that, in the time since the problems began to occur, the police have never been able to speak to her. There is an answer to this - in Scotland, where landlords fail to take reasonable measures they can be recharged for doing so by the local authority. In my view, this ought to go much further - if landlords fail to co-operate with other agencies, then the local authority should be able to take over the property for a specified period of time - say five years - and should receive all rent due on the house in that period of time. Unfortunately no legislation has been enacted in England and Wales to allow this to happen.

In any case, I can only hope his situation improves. Whatever the answer is, we certainly haven't found it at the moment.

The sound of stable doors being slammed firmly shut....

Well, it's a topsy-turvy world. Apparently the Tories are proposing a new tax on banks, which has in turn been slammed by Alastair Darling because it could cause severe damage to the City of London. On that question, I can only quote George Monbiot's excellent riposte on the subject of the 50p top rate of income tax:

"It’s a bitter blow. When the government proposed a windfall tax on bonuses and a 50p top rate of income tax, thousands of bankers and corporate executives promised to leave the country and move to Switzerland. Now we discover that the policy has failed: the number of financiers applying for a Swiss work permit fell by 7% last year. The government must try harder to rid this country of its antisocial elements."

..which was pointed out to me by a Green Party colleague.

But coming back to the point, we should get a couple of things in perspective. We may imagine Dave donning his polo-necked sweater and making off with his mates to a bender in Glastonbury where they are about to plot the downfall of world capitalism - but we should also bear in mind that the Tories fully support the great bank bailout in 2008 - indeed, George Osborne actually called for it before Alastair Darling approved the idea. In my view, this is where the most profound mistake was made.

Let's take RBS as a case in point. In 2007 a consortium involving RBS gained control of ABN AMRO, an investment bank. Like most other investment banks, ABN AMRO was very hard hit when the financial crisis occured, and when RBS reported a £28n loss in January 2009, £20bn of this was down to its partial acquisition of ABN. By its nature, investment banking is a risky business, and it's very unclear why so much taxpayer's money was put into bailing out this operation - except for the fact that years of regulatory failure allowed it to become so heavily entwined with the more basic parts of the financial system that its collapse could have had unpleasant ramifications.

Those unpalatable problems should have been faced in 2008, when the affairs of the insolvent banks should have been wound up in an orderly manner. That doesn't mean there wouldn't have been a charge to the taxpayer - the branch network should have been nationalized and those ordinary RBS savers who had deposits should have been compensated - but this would have cost a fraction of the amount that was actually spent shoring up the whole rotten system. In fact, there are investment banks, hedge funds and other bodies in the appropriately named "shadow banking system," mainly based in tax havens, who should thank their lucky stars for the generosity of British, and other taxpayers - not that they pay any tax in the UK themselves, of course. Still, if you happen to be passing the Cayman Islands any time soon, I'm sure they might be civil enough to offer you a dry Martini in exchange.

Going back to the "bank tax," one should remember that in its original incarnation, it was billed as a sort of insurance fund in case the banks had to be bailed out again. In my view, this gives the worst possible message to the risk takers. However, given that we are where we are, I would support the bank tax so that ordinary people can claw back some of their money that has been so unwisely invested. The question is whether we can really look forward to a reduction in jobs in the City as a result.

The dominance of the financial sector has actually been like a powerful and unhealthy drug to the British economy. Successive chancellors have found it convenient to rub along with their mates in the city because of the money that it brought in for the Treasury - until 2008, of course, when a lot of it went back again. But it has also gradually but profoundly distorted the economy - destroying manufacturing because of the overvalued pound, making us dependent on cheap imports and the retail sector and increasing the disparity between the economy of the south east and other regions. The large bonuses so gleefully handed out have also helped to drive a ten-year housing boom, which at its height meant that many homeowners were making more money on paper from the appreciation in the value of their house than they were earning at work; all these things were symptoms of the "money for nothing economy."

That's why I put in my latest leaflet that we need to be supporting science, innovation and manufacturing for the 21st century. This is partly about dealing with climate change and creating "green technologies," but it's also about back to basics - earning our brass by producing goods and services that people want to buy. If that means that some bankers leave the country, then goodbye and don't forget to send us a postcard.

PCS Strike

The PCS union is organizing two days of industrial action on 8th and 9th March. This concerns unilateral changes being made by the government to the civil service compensation scheme, which will mean that those unfortunate enough to lose their jobs could lose a large chunk - in some cases over a third - of their redundancy pay along with some of their pension entitlement.

An Early Day Motion (EDM 251) has been signed by around 150 MPs of all parties - Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative - calling for a rethink over these changes and a return to negotiations. Hugh Bayley's name does not as yet (6th March) appear next to the motion but I sincerely hope he will be willing to support it. If cuts are to be made, surely the last thing we should be doing is stripping those unfortunate enough to be made redundant of their rights, many of whom may have given years of service.

I will be supporting those taking industrial action on Monday.

That'll teach me

Well, there I am again opening my big mouth. An (anonymous) commenter to the last post asked me whether I had checked the tax status of every single individual who has made one of the 403 cash donations to the Green Party since 2001 (as stated on the register of donations to political parties, freely available on the Electoral Commission website, a question that of course I can't answer. Well, it does at least prove that someone is reading the blog!

What I have done is to list the Green Party's cash donors for 2009 (the whole year) below:

Donor Grand Total
Mr Thomas Gordon Roddick £30,000.00
Mr Michael Brook £30,000.00
Mr Ben Goldsmith £30,000.00
Ms Deborah Joffe £25,000.00
Mr Noel Gillian Kirkby £24,012.24
Mr Peter Kindersley £15,000.00
Mr Arthur Nicholas Gillett £15,000.00
Ms Jean Lambert £10,620.00
Political Animal Lobby Ltd status: Company company reg no: 2565899 £10,000.00
Ms Lucy Hall £10,000.00
Mr Michael Constantine £10,000.00
Ms Anne Power £9,500.00
Mr Chris Simpson £8,600.00
Mr Darren Johnson £8,140.00
Mr Nick Robins £7,250.00
Ms Caroline Lucas £7,100.00
Mr Martin Stanley £6,500.00
Ms Sarah Edwards £6,000.00
Mr Jonathan Porritt £6,000.00
Mr Mark Cridge £6,000.00
Mr Brian Fewster £6,000.00
Ms Rosanna Taylor £5,200.00
Mr Ricky Knight £5,180.00
Mr Martin Bevis Gillett £5,000.00
Mr Richard Reed £5,000.00
Mr Martin Beavis Gillett £4,000.00
Ms Mischa Borris £4,000.00
Ms Jenny Jones £3,525.00
Mr Brian Candeland £3,500.00
Ms Janet Alty £3,000.00
Mr Rupert Read £2,500.00
Ms Jennifer Toms £2,400.00
Mrs Jean Lambert £2,305.00
Mr Christopher Simpson £2,250.00
Glastonbury Festivals 2009 Ltd status: Company company reg no: 4348175 £2,000.00
Mr Andrew J P Gray £2,000.00
Environmental Futures Ltd status: Company company reg no: 4570563 £2,000.00
Mr Adam Ramsey £2,000.00
Mr Roger Ross £1,950.00
Ms Beverley A Cross £1,600.00
Ms Deborah Glass £1,400.00
BCMY Ltd status: Company company reg no: 4410148 £1,352.36
Hillingdon Green Print status: Company company reg no: 5203222 £1,300.00
Mr Arthur David Williams £1,224.00
Mr Craig Simmons £1,000.50
Grand Total £340,469.10

So there you have it. If any of these people are card-carrying non-doms I apologize, but as you can see there are no individual donors over £30,000, and many of the largest ones are bequests. As it happens, I do know a significant number of people on this list personally, as they are party members, and Green MEPs and London Assembly members also feature prominently in the list. Like many people in the Green Party, they often reach deep into their own pockets to fund their election campaigns.

Just for comparison, I included the Tory Party's donations for the same period:

Donor Grand Total
David Rowland £1,914,050.00
Stanley Fink £1,591,640.00
Michael Farmer £928,000.00
National Conservative Draws Society status: Unincorporated Association £821,500.00
IPGL Ltd status: Company company reg no: 02011009 £547,100.00
Lord John Sainsbury of Preston Candover £500,000.00
Joseph C Bamford £400,000.00
Michael D Bishop £335,000.00
Focus on Scotland status: Unincorporated Association £316,000.00
JCB Research status: Company company reg no: 00682651 £256,000.00
Mr Jeffrey Whalley £250,000.00
Lord Philip Harris of Peckham £250,000.00
IM Properties Plc status: Company company reg no: 03456022 £250,000.00
Mr Michael Hintze £222,000.00
William Cook Ltd status: Company company reg no: 00074837 £200,000.00
Peter A Cruddas £200,000.00
Mr Mark Bamford £200,000.00
Mr Paul M Ruddock £166,500.00
Michael Freeman £165,500.00
Mr Peter Beak £150,000.00
Ivor Braka Ltd status: Company company reg no: 01840837 £150,000.00
FIL Investment Management Ltd status: Company company reg no: 02349713 £150,000.00
Flowidea Ltd status: Company company reg no: 02463564 £131,170.00
Jeremy Hosking £125,000.00
David Whelan £125,000.00
Mr Abduladem M EL Mayet £118,000.00
Mr Alexander A Fraser £115,000.00
Rainham Steel Co Ltd status: Company company reg no: 01093531 £114,200.00
Mr Hani Farsi £110,968.46
Barbara C Yerolemou £110,000.00
Mr Michael Freeman £105,000.00
David Ord Ltd status: Company company reg no: 02614362 £105,000.00
Mr Anthony N Bickford £101,000.00
Mr James Stewart £100,230.00
Paul A Beecroft £100,000.00
Mr R C W Odey £100,000.00
Mr James Lyle £100,000.00
Mr Chaim P Zabludowicz £100,000.00
GFI Holdings Ltd status: Company company reg no: 03405222 £100,000.00
Fares I Fares £100,000.00
Grand Total £23,737,044.77

Please note I've only separated donations over £100,000 (otherwise they would run to 1,000 lines). So do I decry the Conservatives for accepting any large donation? No. Do I think something should be done to ensure that such large donations are not required in future? Yes. What do the Conservatives or Labour plan to do about this problem? Nothing. As long as this situation persists, there will be a concern that big money donors have too much influence over policy.

Policy supported by the Green Party conference:

RPA06.2: Peerages and Party Funding (Originally passed – Spring 2006)

Conference notes:

The controversy over the appointment of new Labour peers. That peerages appear to be given to major donors. That secret loans to the Labour Party were not even declared to the party treasurer.

These scandals highlight two problems:

• The House of Lords is filled by appointment rather than by election
• Political parties have to rely on rich individuals, big businesses and trade unions for funds

The Electoral Commission is investigating issues around party funding and the second chamber.

The Green Party supports a fully elected House of Lords and state funding for political parties. These changes would remove the dependence of parties on wealthy donors and the temptation for parties to reward donors with honours.

Conference instructs GPEx to commend these policies to the Electoral Commission.

So we need an end to large donations to political parties, an end to non-dom tax status and an end to an appointed House of Lords. And I can tell you that if there are any large donations to my campaign, you'll hear about them on this blog!

Some reflections on the day - party funding and climate change

A couple of political stories in the news today - apparently Tory donor Michael Ashcroft has now admitted that he has "non-dom" tax status and consequently doesn't pay any UK tax on his overseas earnings - just one day after David Cameron assured us that is was our patriotic duty to vote Conservative. But no worries, apparently Lord Ashcroft will do the right thing and condescend to pay tax along with everyone else in the increasingly unlikely event of a Tory government getting elected (if the opinion polls are to be believed).

Michael Gove's response to being questioned on Newsnight seemed to be along the lines of: "Well, this is bad, but Labour (who have several non-dom donors) are just as bad if not worse." If this is the "moral compass" we can look forward to under a Tory government, then I'm afraid I must downwardly revise even my modest expectations. It seems even the Lib Dems have been accepting money from non-doms as well - just to make sure that all of the main parties will think twice about reforming the tax status of this priveleged minority.

The difficulty that is skirted around here is the whole issue of party funding in general. My consistent but unpopular view is that there should be state funding for political parties - something guaranteed to produce a gruff reaction from the average taxi driver: why should we fund that bunch of so-and-sos?

The reality is that such a state funding scheme would cost at most around £50m a year - less than £1 for every person in Britain - so it would hardly bankrupt the country. Instead of this, our current system ensures that a small number of major donors, some of whom give many millions to their chosen parties, are able to exercise vast and disproportionate influnce over the legislature - or, to put it another way, we have the country run by crooks. The small amount of money that a state funding scheme would cost - along with a complete ban on all large donations - would be an investment in a cleaner political system.

This episode also gives us a clue as to why, after thirteen years of Labour government, the House of Lords still does not contain a single elected member. Both the main parties have rewarded their donors with Lords appointments - so they have been able to buy influence within the legislature. It's high time the House of Lords became a properly elected and accountable body, not a social club for cronies of the rich and powerful.

And yes, just for the record I can confirm that the Green Party isn't bankrolled by non-doms and neither is my campaign in York Central. I expect to spend about £2,500 on my campaign - around one quarter of the maximum amount allowed. This money has been entirely raised by local fundraising - such as music events and stalls, as well as by the small printing operation that I run myself as a volunteer (which also prints most of our election leaflets).

Climate change

Professor Phil Jones of the UEA was questioned by a parliamentary committee today about the hacked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit. According to Newsnight, he was pretty robust under most of the questioning but did struggle to respond to a query from Labour MP Graham Stringer about why the basic data and computer code for the climate calculations had not been made publicly available.

This really gets to the key error of judgement made by the CRU in the whole affair - all the station readings and methods of collation should have been published on the internet from the beginning. Attempting to treat this information as proprietary has allowed climate change "sceptics" to spin ludicrous conspiracy theories about "falsified data."

On this matter, we could take some lessons from the United States, where NASA published the basic data and full computer code for its GISTEMP temperature series in 2008. And what devastating demolition of these figures have we heard from climate change sceptics since then? Perhaps they're still preparing something.....

Getting back on track

A correspondent to the York Press asked last week about cheaper rail fares. Read the response letter I sent below...

In response Owen Clayton (Hugh Bayley's inaction, 18th February), I am very happy to say that I fully support the campaign to cut the cost of rail fares. Surveys have shown that people in Britain are typically paying around 50% more those elsewhere in Europe for similar journeys.One factor that has exacerbated this problem is privatization.

Why do we have public subsidy being provided at one end of the system whilst massive private profits are creamed off at the other end? As an example, until 2007, HSBC rail (a rolling stock leasing company) were charging £120,000 plus VAT each year to Island Line Trains for each of six former London Underground units operating on the Isle of Wight Railway - although the trains had been built in 1938. This figure did not even include maintenance!

The government-owned East Coast franchise that has been introduced after the National Express fiasco should be a first step to bringing the whole of our rail system back into public ownership. This was actually supported in a motion passed by Labour Party members at their Conference in 2004, only to be told bluntly by then Transport Secretary Alastair Darling that such a policy had been ruled out.It's time to get back to the basics of customer service and value for money. Government cash put into the railways should be providing a better and cheaper service for everyone, not massive profits for obscure "leasing" companies, many of them owned by banks.

Andy Chase
Green Parliamentary Candidate for York Central

Issues on the doorstep

Well, been out canvassing earlier today. Quite a lot of positive responses and a few diehard Labourites, but also a number of people who are thoroughly disenchanted with politicians of all colours - many of them former Labour supporters. If I were a sitting Labour MP in any seat, I'd be seriously worried about the fallout from the expenses scandal. What's unfortunate is that the behaviour of those MPs who were claiming everything they could has tainted everyone in the political system.

One is sometimes met with the retort that "they're all the same." As it happens, I don't think this is true of everyone in the main political parties, let alone the Greens. There are MPs in other parties - Vince Cable (himself a former parliamentary candidate for York) to name but one, who chose not to claim substantial amounts of money they could have claimed under the rotten expenses system for mortgages and other items. I'm not saying they were a majority - it's truly sad just what a large proportion of MPs were sucked into the trough - but the fact remains that a high-minded minority did not.

The only way this mess is going to be sorted out is by people voting for candidates who have committed themselves to change.

I've already stated clearly on the York Green Party website and in my leaflets where I stand on this matter. If elected, I won't claim for any mortgage payments, maintenance on properties, furniture or expenses for normal everyday items like food that I would have to buy anyway. I will use only the cheapest rail fares (that means standard class travel on every trip) and use the cheapest accommodation if staying away from home. Additionally, I'll list every expense I claim on the internet and have anything I do claim independently audited every year.

This isn't purely an empty promise as I already work for a national charity - and I occasionally have to travel away from home. Because of this, I'm already expected to keep expenses to a minimum when at work.

We need to return to the principle that every expense should be wholly, necessarily and unavoidably associated with the job. I was one of the many people who wrote to their MPs in 2009 before the expenses scandal broke to persuade them not to pass legislation to stop freedom of information access to expenses - and I will continue to campaign for changes to the system. But I will also be keeping my own house in order whether "the system" changes or not. I'm also proud that the two Green MEPs in Brussels have an excellent record of probity over their claims, having published their expenses online for years.

So I would urge anyone who is concerned about this to scrutinize what all the candidates have said - and done - on the matter to date: then use your vote to make a difference.

The thin end of the wedge

According to the Yorkshire Post, on Tuesday the planning committee of Doncaster Council will consider an application to lift restrictions on night flights and loud aircraft at the Robin Hood Airport near Finningley.

It shows the value of the work being done by local people to resist plans to establish a commercial airport at Elvington airfield near York. As can be seen from the case of Doncaster, this can very often be the thin end of the wedge for more extensive operations later on. But disturbance to residents isn't the only issue about airport expansion.

As this FoE report discusses, the obsession with regional airport expansion actually drains money away from regional economies: as people go on cheap flights to the sun, they spend more money abroad than visitors from overseas to the UK - £26 billion a year as opposed to £11 billion, in fact. This £15 billion is helping to contribute to Britain's yawning trade deficit; the only region with a small net positive balance as a result of tourism is London. Alarmingly, the situation is deteriorating further - the number of visitors to Britain is increasing by 1.8% a year, whilst the number of people travelling abroad is increasing by 5.0% a year.

And of course the elephant in the room here is climate change - there is no realistic prospect of cutting our emissions by the 80% minimum required if air travel - the most environmentally damaging form of transport - is allowed to grow without restriction. Evidence also shows that the Yorkshire and the Humber region is already more than adequately served by airports - so the additional capacity is "pump-priming" for yet more low cost flights. It may be one thing for politicians to try and tell people they're not allowed to go on holiday abroad, but it is another entirely to subisidize them.

The Green Party is the only party to take a strong and consistent stance nationally against airport expansion. Once again, the Greens are not only leading the pack on environmental issues, but economic ones as well.

Let's hope that Doncaster Council have the courage to throw out these plans at their meeting next week.

Lib Dems get lost?

York's Bootham Ward council by-election in the year 2000 will not be remembered by many as a seminal moment in the history of British politics. It was, however, notable for the strategy of Eddie Vee, the Monster Raving Loony Party candidate (whose policies included "finish building the bar walls") for one reason: he decide to put half his leaflets out in the neighbouring ward of Clifton.

Ten years on and where some lead, others follow. A friend of mine who lives in the Wellington Street area reported receiving a publication entitled "York News" through his door, which on closer inspection turned out to be a leaflet promoting Madeleine Kirk, the Lib Dem parliamentary candidate for York Outer. The problem? He doesn't live in York Outer, but instead in Fishergate Ward, which is part of the neighbouring York Central constituency.

Is this a repeat of Eddie's brilliant strategy from ten years ago? Is Madeleine Kirk now standing in both seats? Or is York Outer attempting a hostile takeover bid for York Central? I think we should be told.

Eddie Vee, pioneer of 21st Century campaigning, we salute you!

New blog on the York Central campaign

I found this website today which states it is a "non-partisan blog detailing the candidates standing for the York Central Constituency in the 2010 general election." Certainly as far as I'm concerned the coverage seems to be pretty fair. I'm also quite happy that the author has picked on a couple of my more radical ideas such as congestion charging. My view is that we have to grasp this nettle at some stage unless we want permanent gridlock in the city.

I was particularly interested in this article which notes that the BNP are attempting to exploit fears over paedophiles at the Southview Bail Hostel in Poppleton Road. It notes that the address on the "York Community Voice" blog, which claims to be an "independent group supporting the British National Party" is the same as the contact PO Box number used on the BNP's leaflets!

Anyway, I trust that the author of the blog will be "keeping us honest" until the date of the election!

Conspiracy Central...

It struck me the other day that there are some remarkable parallels between 9/11 conspiracy theories and the argument that man-made global warming is a “hoax,” even to the point that some of the people advocating these ideas are the same. Both these propositions are liable to attract people from the extremes of the political spectrum – 9/11 conspiracies from both leftists and right-wing anti-government libertarians (such as radio talk-show host Alex Jones), global warming conspiracies from both libertarian and authoritarian right-wingers (such as UKIP and the BNP) and revolutionary communists such as “Great Global Warming Swindle” producer Martin Durkin.

Both theories rely on what Ben Goldacre has described as “zombie arguments,” that is to say they crop up time and time again, no matter how many times they are refuted. In the case of 9/11, there is the argument that the fall of the twin towers must have been due to controlled demolition – the main reason being that jet fuel will only burn at around 1000°C whereas steel only melts at 2700°C. This is perfectly true, but structural steel loses around 50% of its strength at 800°C and 90% at 1000°C so that hardly proves that the building (consisting of hundreds of tons of masonry) couldn’t have collapsed under its own weight. Quite apart from this, there is the incredible ingenuity that would have been needed to smuggle some unspecified number of explosives experts into the building and to allow them to rig a perfectly controlled demolition, all of which would presumably have had to be done without the security staff or anyone else in the building noticing anything untoward. There’s also the fact that the building collapsed from above the level of the aircraft impact first – exactly as you would expect if it fell under its own weight. This could have been reproduced under the conditions of controlled demolition, but for it to work the engineers would have had to have extraordinarily accurate knowledge about where the aeroplane was going to hit - and so on. Some conspiracy theorists maintain that the planes were not passenger aircraft, but instead military fuel carriers and that they had “no windows” – despite the fact that windows can clearly be seen in sections of the fuselage recovered from the wreckage.

In like manner, there are theories about the eventual fate of the passengers on flight 93, which crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. There is numerous evidence, from “black box” recordings, radio communications and mobile ‘phone conversations indicating that the plane fell to the ground whilst passengers were attempting to overpower the hijackers. However, some persist in believing that the flight was taken over by CIA operatives who landed safely and then abducted or murdered all their fellow travellers. And some say that a missile hit the Pentagon, not an aeroplane, despite numerous eyewitness accounts to the contrary.

Now, it’s true that global warming scepticism uses its fair share of “zombie” arguments as well – not least that granddaddy of them all “scientists predicted global cooling in the 1970s.” Many of these canards have been repeatedly debunked on the Internet, but are then wheeled out again by sceptics in different forums – for example, Ian Plimer has claimed on several occasions that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans, despite being corrected again and again. He has also repeatedly stated that the US Geological Survey figures that contradict his argument don’t include submarine volcanoes, even though he has been put right on this more than once.

However, I’m going to look here not at the tactics used by sceptics in general, but rather the subset of them that seriously believe that global warming is an elaborate “hoax.” The recent hack of e-mails at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia has of course provided grist to this particular mill. The claim is that the vast majority of climate scientists, nearly all governments around the world, and various combinations of George Soros/ Al Gore/ Arnold Schwarzenegger/ Prince Charles and George Monbiot (please delete as appropriate) are involved in a gigantic conspiracy to falsify temperature records to show that the earth is warming when it isn’t, and/ or to spuriously allege that CO2 is responsible. This conspiracy is generally held to have the following objectives:

(1) To gain additional research funding for climate science (presumably to personally enrich those involved)
(2) To provide a pretext for governments to increase taxes
(3) To establish some form of “world government” (generally held to be a bad thing), or “eco-fascist dictatorship,” and/ or to transfer money to the developing world (for reasons that are not ostensibly clear)
(4) To make money from carbon trading

This has a number of points in common with the ideas of 9/11 conspiracy wonks. To make either of these theories work, the number of participants has to be genuinely vast. Let’s be clear: the main difference between this stuff and the idea that Elvis is alive is that the latter is considerably more plausible. You can imagine that if Elvis had wanted to stage his own death, he would have needed the help of perhaps a couple of dozen people or less – immediate family, undertakers, doctors and so on, who could have been handsomely paid off. That these same people would have kept quiet for years about it is just about plausible. That doesn’t, of course, mean that there is the slightest shred of evidence that such a thing occurred, merely that it’s just about at the far end of possibility that it could have.

On the other hand, the kind of conspiracy needed to explain 9/11 or global warming theory would be on a truly monumental scale. Imagine the number of operatives required to arrange three aircraft collisions, to fake the crash of another one, to rig up an entire building with explosives without anyone noticing anything odd, to position those explosives perfectly so as to mimic the effect on the building of the upper floors collapsing, &c, &c. Dozens, and possibly hundreds of people would need to have been involved – all of whom would have had to keep quiet for years, without spilling the beans. Numerous eyewitness accounts would also have had to be faked.

Likewise, in the case of global warming, the “conspiracy” – and remember, according to these people, “fraud” is what we are talking about – would have to involve hundreds of scientists across a dozen or more scientific fields. Many thousands of data points would have had to be manufactured, and all to be broadly consistent with each other. For example, the computer code and raw data for GISTEMP, one of the most important global temperature series, is published on the Internet and you can bet that the sceptics will have combed every last data point for evidence of “manipulation.” That they have found nothing surely means that the “fraud” would have to relate to the weather station data itself from countries around the world – involving yet more people in the “conspiracy.”

One of the commonly advanced arguments to support this kind of nonsense is that scientists would lose research grants if climate change were shown not to be a threat. Now, it is perfectly true that it might be in the collective self-interest of scientists to claim that there’s a problem when there isn’t; but that doesn’t mean it’s in their individual self-interest. Anyone who came up with compelling evidence genuinely undermining the whole case for anthropogenic global warming would become world famous, would almost certainly become individually very wealthy and would (entirely deservedly) be in line for a Nobel prize. So it seems remarkable that of such a large number of climate scientists, not one of them would be prepared to squeak. Perhaps we can only assume that the mafia are involved too! That’s quite apart from the alleged involvement of world governments, who after the financial crisis surely have enough to do without inventing spurious “crises” to tackle and in doing so making themselves even more unpopular with their own electorates.

So one sees that one of the Achilles heels of both arguments is the sheer number of people who would have to be involved in either case, along with a somewhat convoluted and only superficially plausible set of motives. That hundreds of people could be kept quiet for eight years (in the case of 9/11) or twenty to thirty years (in the case of global warming) is quite incredible – no blabbing, no stories in the press, not even any deathbed confessions.

One other similarity is that the objectors to both global warming and the accepted story of 9/11 are a fairly disparate bunch, who lack any convincing alternative narrative but simply pick away at points, sometimes of a minor and relatively tangential nature, in the “official version.” Very often, the arguments and positions of some of the objectors contradict each other – for example, there are two schools of thought on the 9/11 attacks. Some claim that the whole thing was organized and planned by the CIA, others that it was the work of Al-Qaeda but that the CIA knew about it in advance and deliberately allowed it to happen.

Likewise, the views of global warming contrarians vary, often seamlessly, between the following arguments:
(1) Global warming isn’t happening at all
(2) Global warming is happening, but human activity is not the cause
(3) Global warming is happening and is caused by humans, but the effects will be beneficial, as increased CO2 will lead to greater plant growth
(4) If all else fails, ignore the main arguments and focus on tangential matters (such as the “hockey stick” – the graph that shows that late 20th Century temperatures are the warmest in over 100,000 years. Even if, as sceptics claim, it was warmer in mediaeval times, this doesn’t per se contradict the notion that CO2 is causing warming).
(5) Failing all of (1) to (4), ignore the issue and instead focus on straw man/ personal attacks of peripheral relevance (e.g. Al Gore is a hypocrite)

Finally, there are a couple more things that these theories have in common. One is that, in both cases, the “conspiracy” nonsense did not begin to circulate until some time long after the event. In the case of 9/11, most of the esoteric facts scarcely came to light until some years after the fall of the twin towers; meanwhile, global warming conspiracy theory is also a relatively recent phenomenon. The original idea of the “greenhouse effect” (something of a misnomer, by the way, since the mechanism that warms a greenhouse is actually rather different) was first propounded in outline by Joseph Fourier in the 1830s. John Tyndall in the 1850s showed the heat-trapping properties of CO2 and water vapour. Svante Arrhenius in 1896 made a first attempt at calculating the likely effects of increasing CO2 concentration on temperature, though his first attempt assumed a somewhat higher climate sensitivity for CO2 than would generally be accepted today. Guy Callendar did much additional work on the theory in the 1930s (the effect of greenhouse gases is officially known as the “Callendar effect” in scientific circles) and his work has been built on from the 1950s to the present day. Contrary to the impression promulgated by some sceptics, in the 1970s a large majority of peer-reviewed scientific papers (though not a consensus) suggested that further warming was likely. Yet only in the past few years has anyone been heard to seriously opine that the whole thing (going back how far, exactly) is a “fraud.”

Finally, one has to note that in both cases, there seems to be a small lunatic fringe of conspiracists who will intimidate people they believe (no doubt genuinely) to be part of the “evil empire.” Some eyewitnesses to the events of 9/11 whose testimony contradicts the alternative accounts have received threatening ‘phone calls – and so have some climate scientists, especially since “Climategate.” But there is one fact that runs through all of this – the conspiracy theorists are a diverse, disorganized and disparate group with no alternatives to offer, who are united by nothing other than a desperate desire for their own preconceived opinions to be shown to be true. It’s a lesson that, whatever walk of life we find ourselves in, we should always be willing to reflect on our own motivations and beliefs, and check that we’re not bending the facts to accommodate the self-image we wish to create for ourselves.

And of course, with Britain in the grip of its coldest winter since 1981, we’ve also had the old favourite “global warming isn’t happening because there’s snow outside my window” arguments. In that case, could I advise people to take a winter break in Africa, South America, Canada or the eastern seaboard of the US, southern Europe, Australia or South Asia, all of which experienced unusually warm weather in December.

Anyway, enough for now – time to go out and clear some of the snow on the path outside the house…

Without Borders

I'm not a big fan of national chain stores, but it is certainly with deep regret that I note the passing of York's Borders' bookstore. I went past a couple of days ago and noted that quite a lot of the interior fittings have already been stripped out. With the Central Library closed until April for conversion to a "learning centre," it seems that York has now lost both its public libraries. It must also be difficult for the staff to find themselves seeking jobs in the new year.

One wonders in the longer term where this leaves York's retail economy. The proposed Coppergate II development a few years ago was based on the assumption of an insatiable demand for new retail space and the need to attract large chain stores to the city centre. At present, the former Boots' store in Coney Street is in the process of being divided into smaller units because of the failure to let the larger shop, whilst the old Borders' store stands empty.

Anyway, we ust see what the new year brings, but it confirms the concern I had when I spoke against the Coppergate II proposal in 2003that there were limits to future growth in retail spending and what growth there is ay we be channelled towards the internet rather than shops.