Watch this . . .

NGOs unwrapped, a 7 minute documentary from WORLDwrite exposing the glaring differences between what western charities/NGOs think appropriate for our contemporaries in the developing world and what they desire.

Read on - De Roy Kwesi Andrew 'You hate being affluent? Then swap with us'.

Are you Priced Out?

Struggling to buy your first home? Next rung of the property ladder moved out of reach? Not prepared to over-stretch your finances just for the sake of buying? You are not alone . . .

go to . . . www.pricedout.org.uk

'It's New Labour, stupid!'

Wakefield North, election address

Perhaps the defining features of contemporary UK politics, if not western politics, are the environment, current warfaring, the economy and, perhaps, identity. These features all operate independently yet are linked specifically by New Labour.

Environmentalism and climate change are mostly presented in catastrophic terms, yet combative measures seem piecemeal and mainstream proponents tend to lead a life of hypocritical luxury whilst exhorting restraint and a contented peasantry for the many. Little wonder that many are cynical.
Our daily activities and supposed selfish nature are made out to be the most destructive factors and the ongoing discussion of this has a debilitating effect - what then is the point of our going to work, raising a family and wanting a decent life if that contributes to our supposed demise?

Environmentalism does raise questions as to new ways of doing things. The current direction is one of miserabilism, negativity, increased effort and ever decreasing circles. Its whole basis is that human existence in a modern, developed form is ruinous to life and the planet itself. If it really was the case then surely it would be all hands on deck and a manning of the pumps, instead we're encouraged to reuse, recycle, make do and mend, cycle, scrimp and save.
For the sake of nature and future generations we must demand less, reign in aspiration and live a simpler life. Even though on-message scientists decry the way their findings are interpreted that hasn't stopped the government from continuing its agenda.

For society in general it means everything has to be accounted for from our rubbish to cars, holidays and homes. Rubbish has now become a major issue - voluntary recycling of dubious benefit is now giving way to a more coercive version and we can be fined for putting out the wrong sort or our bins on the wrong day.
Gone are the days when taxes paid for binmen to take the lot away and streets were regularly maintained. Instead jobs are cut at the council, a fatuous and expensive managerial layer is imposed, a voluntary layer of competing community groups is encouraged and we're expected to do more of this ourselves.

If it truly was worthwhile recycling then it would be done efficiently on a grand scale or incinerated for energy production. But no, big projects are out, as is letting machinery do the work. This seems contradictory for a modern economy but it's true worth is ideological - to guilt trip the consumer.
Perhaps it is more symbolic of the state of UK politics.

On a larger scale this affects industry, commerce, our view of humanity and involvement with the rest of the world, how we make a living and the quality of that life.
At its must fundamental is the denial that human beings can have a positive impact or cope with changes. Yet the planet has undergone many changes in its lifespan and people with far less technology coped. In fact it's technology and modernity that have allowed us to thrive; this best witnessed by the high survival rate of people in earthquakes in Los Angeles compared to those at Bam, Iran or the Indonesian tsunami.

The world will continue to change and it can only be through the greater use of technology and ability to meld the natural environment that we can hope to continue prosperity now and for future generations. Much play is made of our impact yet just 2% of landmass is urbanised ie, built upon and this out of a landmass that covers 30% of the globe. Doesn't this make a mockery of resource depletion and overpopulation?

Many have become entirely cynical about the political process as new scares and initiatives are constantly launched and politicians get on the bandwagon. So much to the point they are largely left to their own devices. The promotion of this agenda is dangerous if left unchecked and it remains by default. Despite belatedly recognising its inherent contradictions this has proved too problematic - New Labour's programme is riddled and Blair at his most triumphant was revealed as empty and exhausted. Perhaps not too surprising the rest of the mainstream chose not to attack but to occupy the same ground.
The danger is this encourages an outlook of fatalism and entrenchment just as Britain's elite try to revitalise the economy and standing in the world. In fact UK politicians are at the forefront of promoting the environmentalist message at home and abroad.

If the planet is not safe in our hands then we also need guidance in our daily lives. Our convenience and quality of life is being determined by government and subordinated to nature. This in schemes to limit private transport and mobility to cramped and expensive housing and lack of investment in infrastructure.
How we relate to each other as individuals is officially subject to behaviour and speech codes, we have a tick list achievement chart for babies, contradictory and puritanical advice as to the food we should eat, smoking bans and alcohol restrictions and further increases in state intrusion.
The informal and private sphere is losing out as surveillance and regulation become the norm; surveillance in the form of increased officialdom and gathering of information to CCTV and pilot schemes where 'responsible' teenagers watch the public and bark out orders via public address.
This is a chilling and apt metaphor for Blair's legacy - not so much nanny statism as ill conceived politics of an authoritarian school prefect.

If the enforcement side of politics is bad then it has an equally dismal encouraging side where model citizens are to engage in government sponsored and lottery funded inclusion schemes - the irony being that monies gambled by those wishing an escape from the everyday are used to reinforce it. Even worse is the insular and meaningless heritage or arts scheme used for this - ex MP for Wakefield, Dave Hinchliffe tried to steal Robin Hood from Nottingham until reminded that promoting an outlaw didn't ride well with current ASBO culture. Now we have the promotion of Wakefield as part of the Rhubarb triangle - a food originating in the far east.
Such is the condescending nature of regeneration schemes, the promotion of a sense of place and a pick and mix attitude to establishing cohesion.

This is the 'white side' of multiculturalism - a clumsy attempt to pigeon-hole groups of people to stereotype. Multiculturalism only favours officialdom whereas for everyone else it's a straitjacket that harnesses division. It affects how we view ourselves and others and suspends universal traits. In truth we find common desires and benefits in new influences. Today though, community groups have to meet strict criteria regards diversity, 'inclusion' or the environment to receive funding. In this way the government implants its own view as to the type of people we should be and free association, speech and thought - the right to challenge ideas and criticise becomes curtailed.
If multiculturalism is bad for newcomers then it seems to be disproportionately aimed at the white masses. An authentic heritage is chopped and changed to produce a sterile version, attempts are made to rename Christmas; hot x buns and baa baa blacksheep are banned. On the streets we have bits of history plucked out the air and MPs travel the world to apologise for Britain's dodgier contribution to world affairs. It seems they are more happy to reinterpret the past than to address the problems we face today, and those largely of their own making.

Nowhere is this best exposed than western intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unrest in the middle east comes largely as a result of continual western intervention and dealings with the likes of Saddam Hussein and the Taleban when it suited, only to turn against them when things got out of hand. The only interest western governments have is to cohere a worldview around themselves and maintain their own positions. In this they have failed miserably and these debacles are now more about them saving face.
These and subsequent interventions will only cease when western peoples rid themselves of such self seeking politicians.

The realignment of the economy is set to be more growth in lower paid service sector work, retail and tourism coupled with a higher end financial, managerial and consultancy element. This is probably the driver behind New Labour's efforts to get us all to step into line and be happy with a smaller lot. Here they attempt to lead the way in reorganising various public sector work. As well as job losses, squeezing conditions and service cuts that means passing the buck to an often ill eqipped and more expensive private sector. And all wrapped up in a legislative and bureaucratic framework
Although contradictory, patronising and ill conceived this stuff runs throughout New Labour's agenda and reveals a profound contempt for the public.

It could be argued that government attempts to encourage civility - good behaviour and decent standards - is not such a bad thing (and would be a bit more credible if they lived up to the billing) yet they realise that this comes as much from us having decent employment as to where we live. Shame then that their thinking does much to discourage a progressive view and further undermines UK design and manufacturing.
If we are ever to see genuine progress that means ridding ourselves of the sustainability agenda and social engineering and thinking anew. Decent employment and a better quality of life can be had by questioning that put before us and embracing change.

*******

This intervention may not be the norm for local elections but aims to start challenging some of the contradictions and challenges we face and attempt to turn things around.

Vote Independent!

'Climate change: Why we don't believe it'

(Reply to New Statesman article, 23rd April)

What is annoying about these discussions is the oft holier than thou assumptions of the new righteous. It is also alarming that these ideas are becoming evermore predominant. Yet no-one with any sense denies climate change as the world has been through many dramatic changes during its lifespan.

What is still in dispute is the level of impact our actions have had. Here again though we are able to see that we can also affect such things in a positive manner should we choose. Though such a view is anathemic to those that cry out doom.

That is the main problem with environmentalism, ie. its denial of human agency as a force for good on a grand scale. Instead we get repetitive and patronising advice as to the simple measures we can take to tackle climate change - turn down the heating, reduce, reuse, recycle, use pubic transport/bicycles and trade emissions.

(Some people really ought to be hoist by their own emissions.)

According to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report: Urban Environments, just 2% of the world's landsurface is urbanised/built (out of 30% land/ 70% water split). That leaves a huge expanse that is wilderness, natural, preserved or farmed and suggests we've barely scratched the surface let alone depleted resources.

Shame on you treehugger types out there for it is your outlook that will condemn future generations to the whims of nature if unchecked. Intermittent natural power supply will not guarantee controllable and deliverable energy in any amount that gives us a comfortable life (eg. see Wind power in Denmark, Dr V.C. Mason, www.countryguardian.net).

Further, without an enquiring nature and the development of complex and cheap mass produced technologies we would neither have the time nor means to have this discussion nor have been any the wiser.

I think this will prove to be a dangerous and problematic route for, particularly western, society. The UK, seemingly lacking any other credible raison d'etre, is at the forefront of promoting this. How much the UK is reliant on convincing the rest of the world to slow down is anyone's guess but what's left of UK and european manufacture can't compete against it's growing far eastern counterpart, especially if they opt to take less of a head in the sand approach.

The British National Party gains strength?

(3rd attempt to 'have a say' at Timesonline debate.)

Your article correctly states that the BNP often reflect the concerns of a significant and angry portion of the white masses (whereas the left generally avoid confronting the same). As such they prove to be opportunistic and tail the issues of the day, albeit with their own particular twist.
Though, however odious or cranky we may find them it would be unwise to dismiss what they represent. For instance, in these days of multiculturalism (soft core apartheid) and political correctness many things have been sidelined at the prompting of authorities - everything from free speech to the banning of St George's flag, hot cross buns, baa baa blacksheep and the attempted renaming of xmas - traditional beliefs reinterpreted and repackaged.
This coupled with the promoting of 'foreign cultures' has left a lot of people angry and created the space for the BNP's brand of victim politics.
Strip away their myth take on history, dollops of bigotry and hypocrisy though and we see an underlying element of pride and standards ie. something good about Britain and what Britishness could mean.
It's a genuine shame that Griffin and co don't promote some of the better things that Britain is known for - The Industrial Revolution, significant contributions to the arts, literarture, science and medicine, exploration and so on, or even something of what our character is supposed to be - adventurous, honourable, stoic and industrious.
Sadly, these things are all very much in decline, being apologised for or addressed in contradictory terms.
This is a shame because most of the people encountered who consider voting for the BNP are hardworking, well presented taxpayers who are fed up of being ignored and often respond to the lack of resources or overcrowding message. With cutbacks in services and perceived favouring of newcomers and nowhere else to take their frustration it's little wonder that the BNP are seen as an alternative.

Nevertheless, it would be unwise to panic about this upsurge of interest as more often than not many don't fully identify with the whole package and see through the rest of it.
Even speaking to BNP supporters outside Leeds Crown Ct recently it was evident that most of their anger was directed at the Government rather than immigrants and this even more so when canvassing doorsteps.

Despite the limitations of their programme I'd argue that this positive element ought to be addressed.
Griffin hints at his limitations and reckons he can only take the BNP so far (although he cites 'baggage' - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - what politician doesn't have?). Instead, personally and politically, Griffin prefers isolation; claiming nothing special about being British other than the colour of our skin and attachment to some mud and rocks.
Nothing great about his Britain then.

This denies influence and influences from further afield and throughout history and should be no go.
Geographically it makes little sense to have borders - Scotland, for instance, once on the equator and underwater; landmass, regardless of our hyper real footprint, will alter over time. Further, it makes little sense to pursue isolationism and maintain barriers in a globalised world. The free movement and association of people ought to be celebrated.
Demographically, the UK will need a constant influx of migrant workers and we should be glad they choose to come here and partake in what Britain has to offer.

What about considering Britain as more the people and ideas of the time? I see no basis for patriotism but would feel some pride if the people of Britain turned things around.
The problem is neither the BNP or immigrants but New Labour.

Reply to constituent and public sector employee, Wakefield North ward 17.

I was very pleased to receive your letter as you have raised some issues I hold dear. However there are significant other things worthy of further discussion.
In this reply I will try to be as brief as possible but reserve the right to elaborate where I feel necessary. After all, I suppose I'm trying to be a politician - however reluctantly.

Politics, particularly in the UK, is pretty bland, uninspiring fare. It is also dangerously invasive and prescriptive to us as individuals - all our quite normal activities are open to scrutiny and increasing regulation. This forms part of the 'battleground' that is politics today. The bigger picture is The Environment; the root being that people, us, are bad.
Of course it's not all bad, the show goes on and we all go out to earn a crust.

We'd be unwise to ignore the changing ground; part of which is the happiness agenda - lowered horizons, felched history, making do and mend, scrimping and saving. Further, the government is shifting responsibility to private companies and individuals and all within a legalistic framework - Blair's true legacy.

I'm not big on economics but it seems like Brown's predictions are proving amiss. With big projects on the horizon and disastrous, costly wars we can only expect more buck passing and ill-conceived, messy private services and perhaps a government making itself redundant.

I'm no nationalist but this would also seem to be no competition to eastern economies which is likely why the UK is at the forefront of promoting this stuff.
This is a dangerous position but one that also provides an opening.

To answer your questions then -

I'm in favour of us being well rewarded for our efforts - good pay and conditions with security during times of change. That whether privately or publicly employed. We cannot operate with our heads in the sand and just be stubborn. We have to recognise change is happening and not be scared of it. I'd go further and suggest we, the workforce, push ourselves and through doing this we realise who does the work, what gets in the way and see ourselves as agents of change.

As regards public services, I question what we are getting and how it is delivered (under the limiting cover of environmentalism). Public services are now set to be more about the public doing much of the delivering and everything watched and weighed.

If people are interested in delivering a true public service then I will back that to the hilt. However, that requires an open debate and winning the public over to the possibility of being able to make a difference - the 'public' being everybody else, friends, family, neighbours, etc.
That, I believe, will be the only way to make athe beginnings of a lasting and positive change.

Letter to Mr Kojan.

(comment on draft regeneration strategy, Wakefield)

Whilst happy to see plenty of development I cannot help but be alarmed at the general form, the reasons for it and further implications.

For starters, all new housing is subject to higher density build due to land being artificially restricted rather than positively as communities of people with shared interests (and a common timetable). The latter point something our political leaders seem desperate to foster.

Instead of a natural community developing we are getting a sketchily offered, pick n mix version where privacy, individuality and free association are practically sanctioned by authority.


Our homes fulfill a number of roles yet it's hard to imagine a comfortable family life in such cramped conditions. Overclose proximity to our neighbours is bound to lead to compromise and occasional tension as our activities impinge on those of others.
In crude terms merely going to the bathroom during the night provides a dilemma over flushing and disturbing the neighbours. Granted, my house is some 100 yrs old - I just hope these new homes have decent soundproofing.

Houses built for an entirely different era need constant upgrades so there's always noisy rebuilding work going on and little peace and quiet in the neighbourhood. It's probably fair to that within 20 yrs the process will need to be repeated if occupiers haven't already started updating.

And what of normal leisure pursuits such as playing your favourite music just the way you like it or even kids playing out?

Never mind though, if our quite normal activities prove too intrusive, rest assured, we can always rely on an ASBO or CPSO to keep things quiet.


It used to be said that an englishman (or woman)'s house is his (or her) castle. It would appear not so now. Gordon Brown's prudence will cost us dear both in money and increasing intrusion into our homes. His profligacy with taxes has led to suggestions of window, patio and even 'view from your house' taxes.
It gets worse - they now want to photograph and catalogue every room in our homes. Which with some snide irony perhaps, is being introduced into Northern Ireland first.

Despite our relative wealth we get slammed by high house prices due to this restriction of land; only ameliorated by low interest rates. How long this situation lasts is anybodys guess but there have already been murmurs of trouble ahead in the economy.
Interestingly enough, the debate heard was more concerned with the lack of prison spaces to house us should we resort to criminality as a result.
No focus on decent jobs then?

Decent jobs and a better quality of life could be had by ditching the sustainability agenda and building spaciously on redundant farmland with modern services and infrastructure.

But no, Castleford MP and housing minister, Yvette Cooper, gets herself all excited at the prospect of theoretically building most, if not all, UK housing on dilapidated brownfield land at high density; aided and abetted by hubby, economic secretary to the treasury and Normanton MP, Ed Balls.
That is some double act from so called socialists.

In this way our own private space gives way to chaperoned public space replete with selective heritage features and equally meaningless but instrumental public art.

And what of transport? Private motor cars are frowned upon as unsustainable, antisocial; every regeneration plan attacking private car use and our freedom to roam. This could almost be bearable if public transport was reliable, ran an extended timetable and was user friendly.

Defra minister, Dave Miliband talks of his environment policy as being for 'a land fit for heroes'.
I can only asume he's been watching too many Disney videos.

Drugs are for mugs?

"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness . . . " (Ginsberg, Howl )

Society does need to have an open and honest debate about 'drugs' as it is often something known about but a blind eye turned and discussed mostly in terms that avoid clarity.
For starters, everyone from royalty to politicians, to doers and makers, athletes, armed forces and aged has its share of drug takers.
So why do we do it? Possibly as much a release from or aid to the mundane as football, dancing, reading or a hobby. Some of us even become too absorbed in our work to the detriment of other things and miss out on what those things mean.

It's partly a question of balance - quality, quantity, frequency and variety.

Do we also condemn football, love, alcohol or even politics? The efforts people put into 'the beautiful game' can take those connected through every emotion, affect their well being, cost plenty and takes up plenty of time that could arguably be put to better use. And the world of sport doesn't come without significant risk in the form of injuries, hospitalisation and occasionally death. That said, the world of sport, as most other areas, is evermore subject to increased regulation.

Love is the sweetest thing? Hmm, who could honestly say that our most intimate of relationships don't come without there fair sure of turmoil, disappointment and sometimes even hatred. Some of us do crazy and irresponsible things in the pursuit of what we consider to be love. I'm not too sure we know what love is . . . .

What of politics . . . . ?

What of the abuse/misuse of drugs for 'recreational' purposes? - a significant proportion take a little of what tickles their fancy and are able to cope with life just as much as the rest. Some have their best thoughts or can see through problems that hound them through the week . . . . and, of course, many talk and do utter bollocks.
Though there are plenty of others doing the same without substance.

There shouldn't be any problem with people taking drugs as 'pick me ups/put me downs' as a matter of choice rather than, say, as prescribed by busy Doctors on a mandate not necessarily of their own choosing.
This can be illustrated by an article from The Press, a Dewsbury newspaper, headlined 'OAP drug dealers' (2005?). it appears they were selling on their prescribed medication (which oft just made them into zombies) to the local junkies (who didn't mind 'zombing') and the situation only coming to light when the usual pharmacy break-ins stopped. The medication used in this manner alleged to be more deadly than even heroin.
People go to great lengths to get their kicks, so much that to some the journey and nature of it becomes part of the deal - been there, bought the t-shirt, hat, bumper sticker and badge . . . what a rebel. But no cause.

Behind the drugs 'issue' lies the notion that people are feckless no-hopers/addicts and intrusions into our private affairs are fairgame. Yet, often people from these quarters, pursuing these lines, prove to be hypocritical. David Cameron says that politicians ought to be able to have a (previously) private life. Shouldn't we all?

Surely people should have the freedom to choose their poison without the condemnation of others? Recreational drugs may form part of what we consider to be bad about society but that can be argued is largely due to their illegality. Then there's the guilt trip aspect of the west's decadence causing impoverishment and squalor in other countries. So the likes of Kate Moss, Robbie Wiliams and others are given a derisory snort for causing the plight of Colombians.

Perhaps if the stigma attached to drug use was dropped then better drugs could be developed for all walks of life - recreational, sport and medicinal and these fields having a reciprocating nature. Advanced pharmaceutical companies could then devote less time to maintaining patents and allow production of drugs generically and cheaper abroad where they are required.

60 year old Sylvester Stallone was recently busted for possessing 'a drug containing human growth hormone somatropin, said to help muscle mass, boost the immune system and hair growth', as reported in The Daily Star, 14th March. The Star also says 'the illegal substance is used by cheating sportsmen around the world'.
Given the often short length of career in sport, its injuries and stresses a case could be made or it being an ideal testing ground for drug development.
Perhaps better treatments could be developed through sport that benefit the elderly and infirm, alleviate some of the terrible, debilitating illness that blights the lives of many; a developing ground similar to Formula One racing for the humble family motor.

What of boldly going . . . astronauts, deep sea divers, etc face different pressures and conditions, their bodies stretched or compressed and requiring something a bit more potent than aspirin.

Many drugs and treatments have their origins or development on the battlefield. This in dealing with injury - rapid advances were made in plastic/cosmetic surgery due to the high level of facial injuries resulting from trench warfare. And armies throughout the ages have used and developed more than marching powders to gain that competitive edge.

Johan Hari writes (in Prospect) of the chronic global shortage of medicinal opiates and the particularly cruel irony of this in Afghan Hospitals. This in a country where impoverished farmers are encouraged to destroy poppies and adopt poor returning agricultural schemes promoted by an oppressive force.
Surely that's criminal?

It's truly sad that the battlefield provides an arena for development rather than elsewhere. If we developed a better view of humanity - one that didn't just shoehorn us into stereotype - then those 'hippy types' that huff n puff or others that see hedonism as the way or may be inspired to achieve in other areas . . . as well as choose their poison.

We need more power

Entry into www.spiked-online.com debate: The future of energy.

13 February 2007

Underpinning the current debate concerning energy useage is the contemporary notion that our activities harm the planet. In theory this extends to all our activities and, to some, our very existence. The late Tony Banks MP referred to humans as ‘the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet’. Why we elect such politicians to represent us is beyond me. Perhaps that is a matter for further discussion.

I think humanity’s impact on the planet is overstated. Yes we do affect nature. However, the planet is constantly changing - Scotland was apparently once on the equator and underwater. Any mining or quarrying exposes layer after layer of previous life. Doubtless every square inch of the planet could tell the tale of its existence.

The current Western outlook, however, does not appreciate this, seeing the world as bound in equilibrium and only upset by our activities - but this is untrue. Many things affected the planet long before we stood up. On a naturally changing planet and one that is likely to experience vast changes irrespective of our presence, should we opt for a harmonious relationship with the elements or seek to make things more habitable for the only known being that can make any constructive difference?

I’m enchanted by the idea of free power in solar, geothermal heat pumps or wind power and better insulation and building materials. These things are all useful to a degree. But they are no more of a panacea than recycling our rubbish. This approach will not mean mankind lives comfortably and prospers over time.

The planet will eventually die out anyway - and what then? Does all of humanity go with it safe in the knowledge that at least we did no harm? Or do we get a grip and build on the endeavours of our forebears and develop means to cope in any circumstances? Our future descendants may naturally face greater environmental hazards than we now know; surely they would be in a better position to deal with things with an abundance of energy too cheap to meter?